Players, DMs and Save or Die

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

(roll 20)
"He hits you."
(fail to roll confirmation. Roll damage. Get 27.)
"He does 20 points of damage."

Save-or-die is binary. You can fudge it to ON and you can fudge it to OFF. Other types of actions aren't binary. They encompass a wide variety of outcomes. When fudging them, you can nudge, you can shove, or you can shovel. They don't fall prey to the law of the excluded middle the way save-or-die does.

 

[Lanefan]

That's a good example of why this is essentially a playstyle issue and that people have completely opposite responses to the same thing. For some people (myself included), knowing that the PC won't be killed actually helps emotional investment, since they're able to focus more on the character and its development and roleplaying it without having to worry about all of that going to naught because the character suddenly dies.

If I realize part-way into a game that my character won't or can't be killed, a few things will inevitably happen, probably in about this order:

1. My character will start doing things it probably shouldn't, taking on opponents it normally shouldn't, etc., as there's no true risk in doing so.

2. My emotional investment in the game (not the character, the game) will drop away "ho hum, another victory snatched from the jaws of...well, victory" to near zero.

3. I'll likely retire the character anyway after playing it for a while and bring in something different, particularly if the character concept isn't working for me; in other words just what I'd have done on its death, except without the death part.

4. Lather, rinse, repeat, until I've got a bunch of retired PCs running loose in the world.

Lanefan

 

[Cadfan]

If I realize part-way into a game that my character won't or can't be killed, a few things will inevitably happen, probably in about this order:

1. My character will start doing things it probably shouldn't, taking on opponents it normally shouldn't, etc., as there's no true risk in doing so.[snip]

Fair enough, but this point has absolutely ZERO to do with save-or-die effects.

 

[FireLance]

If I realize part-way into a game that my character won't or can't be killed, a few things will inevitably happen, probably in about this order:

1. My character will start doing things it probably shouldn't, taking on opponents it normally shouldn't, etc., as there's no true risk in doing so.

2. My emotional investment in the game (not the character, the game) will drop away "ho hum, another victory snatched from the jaws of...well, victory" to near zero.

3. I'll likely retire the character anyway after playing it for a while and bring in something different, particularly if the character concept isn't working for me; in other words just what I'd have done on its death, except without the death part.

4. Lather, rinse, repeat, until I've got a bunch of retired PCs running loose in the world.

Lanefan

Well, obviously, this just means that you can't handle a no-death style of play. And that's perfectly fine, really. However, I don't think it's fair for you to hold the rest of us back because of it.

 

[Lanefan]

Fair enough, but this point has absolutely ZERO to do with save-or-die effects.

Only partly true, in that I feel it's relevant to the corollary discussion of in-game PC death in general that the save-or-die mechanics issue is just a part of.

Lanefan

 

[Grog]

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.

So now it looks like we're back to the argument that save-or-die is fine, so long as the PCs don't actually have to save or die.

I've seen this question asked before, but I don't think it was ever answered, so I'll ask it again here. Assuming generally good play on the part of the players, and no major mistakes or acts of stupidity, how often do you think that that a player should have to actually make the roll and have his character either save, or die?

 

[Grog]

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.

Are you seriously comparing the risk of death faced by an average person living in a civilized country with the risk of death routinely faced by characters in fantasy games and fiction?

Because if you are, um.... Wow. Don't even know where to start with that.

 

[FireLance]

I've seen this question asked before, but I don't think it was ever answered, so I'll ask it again here. Assuming generally good play on the part of the players, and no major mistakes or acts of stupidity, how often do you think that that a player should have to actually make the roll and have his character either save, or die?

Speaking just for myself as a DM: never, if the player doesn't want to do it.

Generally good play on the part of the players should ensure that the PCs become aware that a potential encounter involves a save or die ability and at least one of the following:

1. The ability to avoid the encounter; or
2. The ability to obtain a counter to the ability.

Of course, if the players choose not to avoid the encounter (lured by the promise of a greater-than-average reward, for example), then they have elected to raise the stakes. If so, let the dice fall where they may!

 

[shilsen]

If I realize part-way into a game that my character won't or can't be killed, a few things will inevitably happen, probably in about this order:

1. My character will start doing things it probably shouldn't, taking on opponents it normally shouldn't, etc., as there's no true risk in doing so.

2. My emotional investment in the game (not the character, the game) will drop away "ho hum, another victory snatched from the jaws of...well, victory" to near zero.

3. I'll likely retire the character anyway after playing it for a while and bring in something different, particularly if the character concept isn't working for me; in other words just what I'd have done on its death, except without the death part.

4. Lather, rinse, repeat, until I've got a bunch of retired PCs running loose in the world.

Lanefan

Fair enough. It's an issue of play style and personal preferences, as I said. But you're conflating "my character won't die" and "my character won't face any risks in the game," which are not at all the same thing (though, of course, both can exist in the game). I run a game, and I know many others here on ENWorld do, where PCs are constantly being challenged, taking significant risks, have to deal with the repercussions of failure and the consequences of their choices/actions, and generally being put through the wringer. It's just that death isn't one of the risks (there's a faint chance of it happening), but there are a whole lot more out there, most of which I find significantly more interesting. My players and I joke that if the PCs died more often they'd be happier, since then they'd stop suffering. But I'm too mean to kill the PCs.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Sheesh, leave the thread for a day and suddenly there's so much stuff to comment on...you people make thread abstinency really hard.

But does he really need the ability to snuff out the life of PCs and BBEG, or is isn't it sufficient being able to kill a random NPC or PC henchmen with a single spell?

There are even a few spells in D&D that already do this - The Cloud spell (forgot the name) that kills anyone with 9HD or less.
I think they're okay as a "Die" spell (they aren't event Save or Die, IIRC), because, well, they are there to show off the NPCs or PCs power over "moral humans". But against the real powerful ones, it's just not enough.
Such a spell would meaningless for any challenging encounter, but it gives a sense of absolute power for a character.

But if you can regularly use such spells on PCs and BBEG, you too often risk damaging the flow of storytelling or player participation.

Actually, a spell like you describe wouldn't give a sense of the absolute power of the caster against the characters at all. It's more akin to the 9th level fighter casually throwing an axe and beheading the low-level henchman standing directly beside the BBEG, just to show off. That's a relative sense of power. What's the use of the opponent using a Cloud Kill in the face of his attackers if all he accomplishes is killing off their torchbearers, mules, henchmen and sidekicks? He'll just get the heroes more pissed off at him. It would indeed be meaningless for any challenging encounter.

And there are various ways, if you want to preserve the flow of storytelling, to do so without having to take out save-or-die effects from the rules. Same goes for player participation. A few are routinely discussed in this (and the older) thread.

For a better comparison, answer this question. Would you allow a feat that allowed a fighter (around 9th level) to once per day make an attack roll that, if it hits, does opponents hp +10 damage. If not, why not?

You mean like the Death Attack the assassin has, only without the 3-round observation time and without the paralyzation option, and not at 6th level but at 9th? Why should I have a big problem with that?

Please quote the section of the rules that says that "save-or-die effects are a DM tool to be used to make certain encounters and NPCs have a very special significance." I'd be very interested to see that rule section, because as things stand now, by the 3.5 RAW, every single spellcaster in the world above a certain level has access to save-or-die effects, along with several different monsters. There's no "special significance" to them at all.

Huh, you're serious with that? It's so amazing how people on an internet message board, who are usually able to read between the lines of the most simple and unambiguous posts like there is no tomorrow, suddenly want verbatim quotes for a concept that suffuses the whole game we're all discussing about. Are we even talking about the same game here? Let's make a deal, shall we? You read the DMG, especially the first chapter about being the DM, and then you quote me the section of the rules that says that a DM cannot, under any circumstances and at any time, with or without player participation, use or change every frelling rule in the game after some consideration in a way that he believes will result in a better game experience for everybody, or that he believes will fit his campaign or campaign setting better than the RAW. If you can quote me that, I'll get back to you.

Agreeing again, but I'll just toss this out. Its possible that in 4e, fighters and rogues COULD have something like this, thanks to the at will/per encounter/per day paragrim. I would certainly hope it happens at epic levels though.

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.

Looks nice...I'd have done it slightly different. Add a prereq, like Power Attack (or better, a feat that allows you to add your Int bonus to damage...isn't there something like that somewhere in one of the splatbooks?), make it a full-round action instead of a standard one and leave out the -6 modifier instead, and simply state that it kills the target instead of that over-inflated amount of hit points. Also leave out that bit about "no critical hit creatures"....if kill, then kill. Although...maybe except incorporeal creatures. And tie the limit to some ability modifier.
Otherwise, why not?

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>

Assume much? How about doing us all (and yourself) a favour and not try to know better what reaction certain people would have? Speak for yourself only...not that you could, since you're not part of the pro-save-or-die crowd, but it'd help the credibility of your posts.

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

Cheers, -- N

Found the post...work like Destiny Points in SW Saga? And how do they work? I'm curious, because I've been trying to find a good way to introduce Luck and Fate points into my games without making them overpowering everything else.