L&L 3/05 - Save or Die!
- Thread starter Savage Wombat
- Start date
Oni
First Post
And subsequently lead to demands that the healer take care of every last nick, scratch, and booboo immediately.
jbear
First Post
I chose Monte's proposed system.
I don't mind the idea of save or die existing in the game. I just don't want it to reach a stage where PCs lives become trivial. So a system that limits the effect to when PCs are very badly damaged sits well with me.
If a medusa has to hit you first before it turns you to stone, then the medusa will have to use smart tactics as well before it turns you, sneaky attacks and hiding in its twisted lair before turning its powerful gaze upon you. It can't just kill you "bam!"
This gives PCs a chance to be sneaky before battle to trap the medusa before they get hurt.
It gives them a chance to high tail it before the turning begins if things go wrong.
It gives them a chance to find out stuff like this before they go a hunting into its lair, because finding out stuff like this will MATTER.
I also like the limitations it puts on wizards/spell casters. This way they often rely on their fighters so that their magic is effective.
I like how high vs low level and low vs high level synthesises so a medusa is more dangerous instant kill threat to lower level pcs but can still kill possibly kill higher level pcs but with more of an effort. And the same will apply to wizard's spells.
Two issue I do see:
Is there going to be a neat way to track % of hps so that when these special death attacks occur it is a simple matter to calculate if a death save is needed on the fly or is the game going to grind to a halt as the player does the math off the top of their head?
Will the limit placed on wizard spells ability to instant kill lead to a lot of metagaming so as to calculate the amount of HPs a monster has left or will there be a gamey mechanic introduced/put in place like 'bloodied' that the DM declares and so the players know this.
Which if the latter was the case, many people (not myself) who dislike the strong game mechanics involved in 4e will surely dislike something like this also. As I am someone who likes good game mechanics, as I like to think of D&D as a game that I play, this wouldn't be an issue for me. But I sense it would be for many who prefer the game mechanics to intrude as little as possible.
Or am I off base?
I don't mind the idea of save or die existing in the game. I just don't want it to reach a stage where PCs lives become trivial. So a system that limits the effect to when PCs are very badly damaged sits well with me.
If a medusa has to hit you first before it turns you to stone, then the medusa will have to use smart tactics as well before it turns you, sneaky attacks and hiding in its twisted lair before turning its powerful gaze upon you. It can't just kill you "bam!"
This gives PCs a chance to be sneaky before battle to trap the medusa before they get hurt.
It gives them a chance to high tail it before the turning begins if things go wrong.
It gives them a chance to find out stuff like this before they go a hunting into its lair, because finding out stuff like this will MATTER.
I also like the limitations it puts on wizards/spell casters. This way they often rely on their fighters so that their magic is effective.
I like how high vs low level and low vs high level synthesises so a medusa is more dangerous instant kill threat to lower level pcs but can still kill possibly kill higher level pcs but with more of an effort. And the same will apply to wizard's spells.
Two issue I do see:
Is there going to be a neat way to track % of hps so that when these special death attacks occur it is a simple matter to calculate if a death save is needed on the fly or is the game going to grind to a halt as the player does the math off the top of their head?
Will the limit placed on wizard spells ability to instant kill lead to a lot of metagaming so as to calculate the amount of HPs a monster has left or will there be a gamey mechanic introduced/put in place like 'bloodied' that the DM declares and so the players know this.
Which if the latter was the case, many people (not myself) who dislike the strong game mechanics involved in 4e will surely dislike something like this also. As I am someone who likes good game mechanics, as I like to think of D&D as a game that I play, this wouldn't be an issue for me. But I sense it would be for many who prefer the game mechanics to intrude as little as possible.
Or am I off base?
Oni
First Post
I dislike the proposed method in the blog, btw. I think it forces you to have to guess the oppositions current HP state, which renders such powers fairly useless for PC but less so for the DM causing a weirdly imbalanced situation, or it forces too much transparency which highlights the mechanics and the gamey nature of things, and would undoubtedly be a problem for a great number of people.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
All spells must have a secondary effect that is also useful against a tougher opponent. So it can be take damage, check if you are below xx hp.
Or it can be, slowed, check if you are bewlow yy hp.
Or it can be, slowed, check if you are bewlow yy hp.
delericho
Legend
I'm stunned. For a change, a Legends & Lore article that actually makes me more enthusiastic for the new edition. My hit points must be low - I failed to get an Extended Rest last night.
I quite like the idea put forward in the article. I'm not sure, though, whether it's better as "if the attack leaves you below X hit points, save or die" or if it's better as "if the attack does more than X damage, save or die". (Or, how about this - the spell causes a lesser effect normally, but if it scores a critical hit, it becomes save or die?)
I think perhaps it's also a mistake tying everything to hit points. It sounds to me like the game may well benefit from a "mental analogue" to hit points - another pool that is used to ward off domination, fear effects, insanity, and the like.
I quite like the idea put forward in the article. I'm not sure, though, whether it's better as "if the attack leaves you below X hit points, save or die" or if it's better as "if the attack does more than X damage, save or die". (Or, how about this - the spell causes a lesser effect normally, but if it scores a critical hit, it becomes save or die?)
I think perhaps it's also a mistake tying everything to hit points. It sounds to me like the game may well benefit from a "mental analogue" to hit points - another pool that is used to ward off domination, fear effects, insanity, and the like.
Daven
First Post
I dislike save-or-die effects. I feel unfair that PCs can take spells like these, but the DM should care to choose monsters without SoD, or to create wizard enemies without SoD, just to prevent frequent deaths (if story is important).
I don't care about medusas, or super-poisons.
If a sword can chop your head, if fire can roast you, I don't understand why swords and fire just take away your HPs, instead poison or medusa gaze must kill you at the one moment.
HPs are there to prevent death, removing HPs is the answer to every attack.
I don't care about medusas, or super-poisons.
If a sword can chop your head, if fire can roast you, I don't understand why swords and fire just take away your HPs, instead poison or medusa gaze must kill you at the one moment.
HPs are there to prevent death, removing HPs is the answer to every attack.
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
There is already a dying mechanic, would that not work for the Medusa? Every round you fight her make a save vs. dying, when you hit three fails you're turned to stone. Adjust to taste. The effect could get slowly worse after each fail, if you like, but I disliked the progressive effects from 4E that got wiped away by a single save (I'd rather see you move up the track - like disease - or simply avoid moving down the track).
Quickleaf
Legend
I totally agree with you. Both for the reasons you list, and because I think Mearls proposed HP threshold is only appropriate to the fiction of some monsters (eg. Ghouls) but not most monsters (eg. banshee, medusa).
Maybe the press for 5e is to move away from "exceptions based design", but that is one thing I really like about 4e, you could design three monsters each with a "save or die" effect, and have each play out very differently at the table.
For example, banshees might force those in their keening aura to make death saves, making PCs who had recent lethal scrapes more susceptible - this fits the necromantic "closeness to death" theme of the banshee.
Medusa might use a "save and then die", similar to how they're presented in 4e. You don't turn to stone instantly and your allies have a round or two to try and save you.
And ghouls could use the "HP threshold" that Mearls posted about, meaning ghouls prefer to pick off weaker characters (wounded or frail).
Each of these approaches has a different feel and suggests different tactics for the players to adopt.
Blackwarder
Adventurer
I like save-or-die effects against PC and dislike it in the hands of PC both as a DM and as a player.
As a player I dislike it because it makes spell casters too powerfull compared to other classes while having some save or die effects thrown once in a while makes for an extremely exciting game.
I like the basic idea in the L&L article (which I think is written by mike mearls IMO) it got potential, especially the thing about fixed HP rates instead of percentile rates like bloodied values but I also share the concern that looking at it from a player POV it can problematic for several reasons: by tying it to fixed HP rates the player will need to know the HP rate of the enemy which, IMO, break immersion. It shouldn't be a problem for a skilled DM with player who know how to ask him the right questions but for new players and DM who don't have some body to teach them the arcane methods of successfully DMing it could boil to boring excel spreadsheets experience. Another potential problem is power creep where with the right combination of feats and skills a PC could make the spell an automatic hit, it's not a problem when it happens once in a blue moon after a lot of preparations but if it become routine it will become boring and might encourage the ten minute work day problem.
In the end, I think that just like a lot of other things this could be solve with enough of solid DMing advice rather than more rules, considering that SoD effect were disliked because they were prone to get abused by both players and DMs, if they make it into 5e the best method to stop that would be some solid advices in the DMG.
Warder
As a player I dislike it because it makes spell casters too powerfull compared to other classes while having some save or die effects thrown once in a while makes for an extremely exciting game.
I like the basic idea in the L&L article (which I think is written by mike mearls IMO) it got potential, especially the thing about fixed HP rates instead of percentile rates like bloodied values but I also share the concern that looking at it from a player POV it can problematic for several reasons: by tying it to fixed HP rates the player will need to know the HP rate of the enemy which, IMO, break immersion. It shouldn't be a problem for a skilled DM with player who know how to ask him the right questions but for new players and DM who don't have some body to teach them the arcane methods of successfully DMing it could boil to boring excel spreadsheets experience. Another potential problem is power creep where with the right combination of feats and skills a PC could make the spell an automatic hit, it's not a problem when it happens once in a blue moon after a lot of preparations but if it become routine it will become boring and might encourage the ten minute work day problem.
In the end, I think that just like a lot of other things this could be solve with enough of solid DMing advice rather than more rules, considering that SoD effect were disliked because they were prone to get abused by both players and DMs, if they make it into 5e the best method to stop that would be some solid advices in the DMG.
Warder
vagabundo
Adventurer
I'm interested in this idea. eHaving used a few save or die rolls in the past I've never been enthusiastic, but I like this idea and I think it could lead to some interesting play.
Although, I could be eating my words in a couple of years with a blog entry: "Save or Die/HP Threshold SUCKS, I HATE YOU MEARLS".
I want 5e to be its own thing. Bring some interesting new mechanics to the table, so yeah, bring them back if you can put a neat spin on them. I'm game. I'll give them a go.
Although, I could be eating my words in a couple of years with a blog entry: "Save or Die/HP Threshold SUCKS, I HATE YOU MEARLS".
I want 5e to be its own thing. Bring some interesting new mechanics to the table, so yeah, bring them back if you can put a neat spin on them. I'm game. I'll give them a go.
You have misread it.
It's an IF ... THEN statement.
It doesn't say that the gaze will reduce you to 25 HP.
Someone
Adventurer
I wonder how tying near death (being at 0 HP or less) to those effects would work. Normally being reduced to 0 HP means you’re unconscious, but easily revived by any kind of healing, so it’s frequently not a big deal depending on edition. But if some special effect triggers on being at 0 HP from certain attacks, this may make those effects very threatening if PCs are expected to lose and recover HPs easily like in 4e. Being turned to stone in the middle of the fight or suffering from a nasty long term condition from poison is a much bigger deal than just being unconscious.
BryonD
Hero
wanted to see how the "hit points are meat" crowd explain this away if it becomes an official rule.
It's an interesting journey that D&D is on - but some roads have been travelled before.
IIRC there was an extended letters' page debate in White Dwarf (in the late 70s) between Gygax and Don Turnbull on the meaning of HP. A system suggested in WD was that it's only real ouch-bleeding damage when you're down to your last CON-worth of HP. However, then the helpless fighter tied to a rock in front of the dragon would take damage to those core HP immediately. I think this led to the lengthy rejoinder to this by EGG in the DMG.
Much later, /4e gives us bloodied.
Meanwhile, Trail of Cthulhu (being played by some of the designers) gives you a health ability that explicitly says that it's only real hurt-damage when you get to negative health. When you are burning through positive health values you are using up your narrative clout as a hero-not-victim in the game (That is a rather broad summary of the idea.)
So, save-or-die when you're down to a low HP value (why not your last CON or 2*CON worth of HP?) as then you are really vulnerable. Sounds like a road now fully travelled to me.
Bedrockgames
Legend
Put me down for classic save or die.
Blacky the Blackball
First Post
My initial thought when reading the column was to say that I was torn between the classic save-or-die mechanic and this proposed new one.
However, when I started to write a post giving the pro-s and con-s of each one I realised that I can't actually think of any pro-s of the classic save-or-die system that aren't equally valid in this system if it is done right.
So I think that providing the numbers are set right, this new system is now my favourite - particularly with the way it emphasises hit-points-as-fighting-ability rather than hit-points-as-physical-damage.
However, the bit about making sure the numbers are set right is important. I think there's little danger of setting the numbers too high (so more characters might die) because even at its worst it is no worse than a classic save-or-die situation. However, there is a danger of setting the numbers too low; which would result in traditionally scary monsters losing their scariness because their defining feature only works on minions or characters who are so low level they should already be running from the monster at top speed.
The thresholds need to be high enough to be scary for "level appropriate" characters (despite how much I normally hate that concept).
Using the example of a medusa: if we have a medusa that is hypothetically designed to be a challenge (either alone or with allies) for a 5th level party, the threshold for its petrification gaze and/or poisonous snakes should be at least 50% of an average 5th level character's hit points.
Sure, lower level characters can fight a medusa - but they'll be in danger of being turned to stone even when coming into the fight fresh; and only when characters are significantly higher level than the medusa would they be able to confidently attack without worrying about its gaze unless they're already tired and hurt from previous encounters.
However, when I started to write a post giving the pro-s and con-s of each one I realised that I can't actually think of any pro-s of the classic save-or-die system that aren't equally valid in this system if it is done right.
So I think that providing the numbers are set right, this new system is now my favourite - particularly with the way it emphasises hit-points-as-fighting-ability rather than hit-points-as-physical-damage.
However, the bit about making sure the numbers are set right is important. I think there's little danger of setting the numbers too high (so more characters might die) because even at its worst it is no worse than a classic save-or-die situation. However, there is a danger of setting the numbers too low; which would result in traditionally scary monsters losing their scariness because their defining feature only works on minions or characters who are so low level they should already be running from the monster at top speed.
The thresholds need to be high enough to be scary for "level appropriate" characters (despite how much I normally hate that concept).
Using the example of a medusa: if we have a medusa that is hypothetically designed to be a challenge (either alone or with allies) for a 5th level party, the threshold for its petrification gaze and/or poisonous snakes should be at least 50% of an average 5th level character's hit points.
Sure, lower level characters can fight a medusa - but they'll be in danger of being turned to stone even when coming into the fight fresh; and only when characters are significantly higher level than the medusa would they be able to confidently attack without worrying about its gaze unless they're already tired and hurt from previous encounters.
Li Shenron
Legend
I have to say that this is my favourite idea from this column series, I really like it!!
It does preserve the scaryness of save-or-die effects, but also eliminates the case of players losing their high-level PC because on one failed roll since you need to have lost a portion of HP first. Most of the time, high-level PCs should have enough time to play well and take precautions to avoid the worst (or just run away...).
It does preserve the scaryness of save-or-die effects, but also eliminates the case of players losing their high-level PC because on one failed roll since you need to have lost a portion of HP first. Most of the time, high-level PCs should have enough time to play well and take precautions to avoid the worst (or just run away...).
Similar Threads
