Players, DMs and Save or Die

[Geron Raveneye]

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?

Funny...lets ask this again, only differently. 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 suffer a dragon's breath weapon damage?

If what you're aiming at is the argument that a monster ability (or spell effect) that can be countered by careful research by the characters and some thoughts put into protective measures is meaningless in the game and hence can be eliminated without a lot of fuss...I'm seeing a lot of melee monsters in the immediate future of D&D, but no monsters with special abilities.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Take the alternative: Harry and his friends "made" every one of those saves. What if Harry had failed a save? What if Ron did? What if (and this is complete ludicrous, bear with me) J. K. Rowling had NO control over whether Harry lived or died?

Then it would be a game, and not a story.

RC

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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 think it was meant as satire.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

That's an extremely long-winded way of saying, "no, I can't provide such a quote." Of course, it tries to make it Grog's fault that no such quote is forthcoming, because the rules are clear that the DM can change everything, including the default assumptions concerning the frequency that PCs will encounter save-or-die effects, despite these effects not being called out as worthy of special treatment by the DM. That there are default assumptions, and no suggestion that they should be tampered with, but Grog has not made the intuitive leap that these default assuptions should be tampered with, demonstrates only Grog's low quality as a DM.


(No offense meant, Grog. Just a rhetorical device.)

 

[Anthtriel]

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.

You know, there are things you can lose other than your life. In particular: People your character cares about (for roleplayers), your equipment (for munchkins) and your social status ("Oh, look over there, it's the guy who cannot even deal with a bunch of kobolds!")

Most DMs of campaigns probably agree that you should die when you slice your own head off, or when you try to storm the enemy's fortress by yourselves, but those are extremes that only come up if there is something fundamentally wrong with the group.

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.

So you get all the mechanical "benefits" of a death without actually dying. Unless there are "heroic death" rules, then you get all the "benefits" and get to have a great final scene on top of it. What's not to like?

 

[Remathilis]

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?

Kinda, except an assassin's death attack has a fortitude save to negate, requires three rounds to use (so worthless unless you have ambush), must be a melee attack, and must meet all the prerequisites of a sneak attack.

So, in other words, not really all that much in common after all, since a death attack is WAAY harder to use in standard combat.

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 idea was a melee equivalent to finger of death.

Finger of death's casting time is 1 standard action. So is the feat's use.

It deals huge damage (as opposed to a death effect) to make sure death ward isn't the obvious answer. (since only deities have 1000s of hp, no mortal could withstand it) My original draft had damage = opponents hp +10, since it didn't matter the opponent's hp total, if this hit, he was going to die.

No-crits creatures are immune to death effects (like undead and constructs) so I thought the feat should do the same.

There is no real restriction on learning Finger of Death or Slay Living, so the feat requirements are token, (mostly to keep it toward fighter types) and the penalty to hit is a formality to deal with how easy it is to outscale Bab to AC.

Oh, and 1/day, most casters don't usually have more than one SoD per day, but I guess tying it to an ability score (int? Int's good) would work (and better represent a sorcerer's ability with SoD effects)

 

[Remathilis]

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

I'm not for a game where death DOESN'T happen, I just want death to be rare. Rare enough that a reasonable PC who follows reasonable tactics will survive and true final death is a monumental event (even if its not climatic, it means I didn't go down without a fight). However, SoD robs me of that feeling of going down without a fight AND makes death much more common. Lose lose.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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?

IMHO?

Never.

Assuming that the player knows that there is something with a potential SoD effect in a given area, the DM should never force the players to take their characters into that area. The players ought to be making choices, including what level of risk they are willing to undertake, and how they will use their resources to best ameliorate that risk. If they face something that they know has a SoD up its sleeve, then they should either decide to use magic to counter it, or to take their chances.

It is not a matter of the characters having to make the save; it is a matter of the characters choosing to make the save (or choosing to be in a situation where such an occurance is inevitable or nearly so).

RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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



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.

Okay, I guess absolute isn't such a useful word. I assumed "absolute" would be the scale of the world, not the scale of the adventurers, but probably both are relative measurements.

I am not sure if I posted it on this thread or somewhere else, but what would you say to the following rule:
Save or Die exists, but to work as Save or Die against a creature, the caster must have a CR/Level higher than that of the target. (Ignoring for a moment that this would make all Save or Die spells as useful as Cloudkill to PCs). This at least would address the main concern where Save and Die spells in the hands of weaker creatures easily break the game.

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.

But they didn't convince me that taking the source of the problem - the save or die spells - out of the game wouldn't be a lot more easier.

---
Assassins Death Attack, by the way, is no way close to any Save or Die spell I know. The ability has basically no combat application. You need to wait 3 rounds and ensure that your target is entirely unaware of your presence. I think the 3 rounds waiting time alone make it an ability that also removes the major criticismn to Save or Die - you can do something about it (like not failing Listen and Spot checks all the time). (From the 3.x skill rules, this chance isn't high enough, but it's a lot closer to repeatedly, over 3 rounds, taking damage until your hit points drop to -10...)

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Assume much?

IT WAS A JOKE! A parody. Note the smiley. A true joke and a subtle one, but still.

Seriously dude, you have to get off the caffeine and join the anti- save or die crowd.