Players, DMs and Save or Die

[KarinsDad]

I like your revision to my hypothetical feat though, so lets finish it off...

Killing Blow [General]
Requirements: Weapon Focus (any), Bab +9
Benefit: Once per day, you can make a special killing attack as a standard action. You must declare you are using this feat before you make your attack roll. You make one attack at your highest attack bonus, but with an additional -6 penalty. If you hit, you deal your normal damage plus 1,000 points of additional damage. If you miss, your attempt is wasted for the day. This feat has no effect on creatures immune to critical hits.
Special: a fighter can take Killing Blow as a bonus feat.

The pro- save or die people would throw a gasket at their game if their DM had an NPC with this feat and used it against their PC.

DM: "He hits. You're dead."
Player: "What do you mean I'm dead?"
DM: "He hit you for 1032 points of damage. You're dead."

They would blow a fuse.

But, they love save or die. <shakes head>

 

[FireLance]

They would blow a fuse.

But, they love save or die. <shakes head>

But, arguably:

1. The PCs should have done their research on the NPC and discovered that he was so highly skilled that he could kill anyone with one strike of his sword.

2. The PCs should be walking around with delay death from the Spell Compendium, which temporarily prevents death from hit point damage, or with heavy fortification armor, which negates critical hits. Even if they don't have access to such spells or equipment, they should be ready to take action (e.g. fighting defensively) to minimize the chance of the NPC hitting them.

3. The PCs should not randomly encounter the NPC. The players should deliberately decide to take on the NPC, or he should be part of a dramatic and climactic encounter.

4. In any case, the players should stop being such whiny crybabies and accept that their characters could die at any time regardless of any measures they take to prevent it.

 

[Cadfan]

To complete the analogy, a character killed by the damage from that special attack should be bisected multiple times, rendering him impossible to raise without Resurrection.

 

[Ahglock]

So we're moving from save-or-die to die-because-I-say-so?

You can't really fudge save-or-die, because if you do you're either removing them entirely, or you're just deciding at some point that the player dies. Either way, you've removed save-or-die from the game. In the latter case, you're just deciding arbitrarily to kill a PC without even the recourse to a saving throw, which is pretty much the opposite of what most people consider to be fair use of DM fiat.

How is deciding when to deploy a save or die any different than seeing a 20 and saying oh he missed? Either you fudge or you don't. If you fudge you can fudge anything.

 

[Ahglock]

Interesting concept.

Instead of Save or Die, it becomes Save or Coup De Grace. Weaken him first and then throw in the killing blow. But, it does become a bit formulaic and only delays Save or Die to latter rounds. Not quite a good enough solution.


Another possibility is gradual death / turn to stone effects. It takes 3-5 rounds to turn the PC to stone and each round he gets stiffer and stiffer (similar to Heat Metal with varying effects each round). But, at least the PCs (and NPCs) have time to react and possibly counter the effect. This is also good as high level area effect type spells because although it doesn't take the opponents out right away, it does force them to use up resources and waste actions (dispels and such).

This type of multi-round gradual concept could remove save or die as a specific game mechanic, but allow the same cinematic effects. Somewhat satisfying both camps (except for the real extremists). The PC could still die or get turned to stone or get sucked into another dimension, but it's not bang you're dead.

Thanks for helping me think outside the box.

it may be a bit formulaic but I like the gamble of not knowing if the target is weak enough yet, also it fulfills two purposes for save or dies, it gives you an all or nothing method of ending the fight sooner(but not by much), and it allows you to finish suckers in flashy ways from the get go.

I kind of like the multi-round spell idea it works great for the PCs and intelligent NPCs but against a wide range of creatures they wont have any way of dealing with it unless the spell is giving a save each round or something.

 

[Nifft]

How is deciding when to deploy a save or die any different than seeing a 20 and saying oh he missed? Either you fudge or you don't. If you fudge you can fudge anything.

I give my players Fate Points. They fudge so I don't have to.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Ahglock]

This is something I don't quite get. Most novels I read and movies I watch - not to mention most of my own real life and that of my friends - don't have the threat of death as the trigger for emotional investment.

Even when I think of fanastic genres, like superhero comics or fantasy adventures, it's typically not the threat of death but the threat of some other sort of loss or failure that is the basis for emotional investment.

Only in war stories of a certain sort (in which sheer survival, rather than achieving some goal, is the main focus) does the threat of death become the emotional crux. Does D&D have to be like this?

You live under the threat of death right now. You may not be running around and crying oh god no I might die, but guess what eventually you will die, your friends and family will die as well. You know this, we all know this, its part of life, eventually you die. For me the threat of death has to exist in the game or it loses to much touch with life. I'd feel like I was in a crappy Ann Rice novel.

As for comics, novels, movies it depends on the genre. Many books, comics, etc we know the hero wont die in the comic as long as its profitable, but they do a good job of emotionally tricking you into thinking the risk is there. More pulp adventure style genres don't bother, Indiana Jones you never even think about it. Cop shows and movies, mafia movies, harder action movies they do there best to create the feeling that the threat of death is there.

I don't expect everyone to like the type of game I play and run, I do hope that there are adequate rules to cover multiple styles of play in 4e including mine.

 

[Ahglock]

I give my players Fate Points. They fudge so I don't have to.

Cheers, -- N

Saga has force points that I guess work similar. Its the first time I have dealt with them and so far I'm somewhat pleased. I'm not sure I'd like them in a D&D game I run but I may give them a shot though 5 points for each level seems a bit excessive .

 

[KarinsDad]

it may be a bit formulaic but I like the gamble of not knowing if the target is weak enough yet, also it fulfills two purposes for save or dies, it gives you an all or nothing method of ending the fight sooner(but not by much), and it allows you to finish suckers in flashy ways from the get go.

It's not too much of a gamble. If the Fighters already did 100 points of damage, it's a fair bet that the Power Word Kill-like spell is going to finish the job.

But like I said, shifting when it happens (round 5 instead of round 1) is not really resolving the issue.

I kind of like the multi-round spell idea it works great for the PCs and intelligent NPCs but against a wide range of creatures they wont have any way of dealing with it unless the spell is giving a save each round or something.

Isn't that the point? Who really cares if it takes 3 rounds to kill NPC monsters? What matters is that PCs do not die without some chance of affecting their own fate.

NPCs do not play the game and do not care about their fate. If the DM gets upset about a special NPC dying, then it's time to look around for a new DM.

Players do play the game, and they often care about the fate of their PCs.

 

[Nifft]

Saga has force points that I guess work similar. Its the first time I have dealt with them and so far I'm somewhat pleased. I'm not sure I'd like them in a D&D game I run but I may give them a shot though 5 points for each level seems a bit excessive.

The Fate points that I use might be more like SW Saga's Destiny points -- the Force point system seems more like Action points, IMHO. (You get very few Destiny points, while you get a lot of Force points.)

But yeah, similar idea in any case.

Cheers, -- N