Grog said:
Okay, I've seen two votes from pro-SoD people for "The PCs should never have to save or die unless they want to." Basically, they think that save-or-die should only be for big challenges that the PCs can face if they want to, but don't have to face.
Just to clarify: I'm not pro-save or die, just not anti-save or die. I can see why some people might find it attractive, and I can see how I might use it in one of my games, but that doesn't mean I'm eager to use it, or that I will actually ever use it at all. Every edition of D&D has had monsters and abilities that I have never encountered as a player or used as a DM, some because they didn't suit my group's style of play, and others because they didn't seem appropriate to whatever game I was playing or running at the time. I wouldn't lobby for the inclusion of such monsters and abilities, but I wouldn't lobby for their exclusion, either.
1. As a DM, if I want to put an optional challenge in the game that has a good chance of killing some PCs, I don't need an extremely flawed mechanic to do it. There are many different ways I can build a challenging and fun encounter without using abilities that make a PCs life or death come down to a single roll of the d20. Save-or-die is not a necessary component of a "great risk for great reward" scenario, and I don't think that the potential for its use in such a scenario is worth all the problems it causes in other areas of the game.
To be frank, I would only use save or die when I want to subtly discourage the players from pursuing a course of action or as a
punishment consequence for bad decisions. And if it causes problems elsewhere, then don't use it elsewhere. I do recognize that inexperienced DMs could have a game session turn sour due to underestimating the effect of save or die, so I fully support the idea of warning labels/DM advice sidebars on the possible consequences of save or die abilities.
3. This does nothing to address the issue of the players using save-or-die spells against enemies, which in my experience can also be a problem. It can turn an important encounter into an anticlimax (and while encounters are a dime a dozen in D&D, important encounters aren't), and it contributes to the problem of casters dominating the game at high levels ("Gee, the wizard one-shotted the enemy in the first round. Again.")
Taking this slightly out of order because it leads into the next point. Yes, it is a problem, but this can be fixed by having save or die effects work only on mooks or otherwise less powerful foes, e.g. those 5 or more levels below the caster's character level (or caster level, if it is lower than character level). This will mean that the PCs will be unable to affect most BBEGs with their save or die spells, while still allowing them the chance to get rid of the lieutenants in a single round.
2. The idea that SoD should be for optional challenges only means that I can never use high-level wizards or clerics (along with several monsters, such as the iconic beholder) as villains who the PCs must face. Or, alternatively, I have to metagame and have the wizards and clerics choose less than optimal spells to use against the PCs. Neither of those options is particularly appealing to me. If I want a high-level wizard as the BBEG in my campaign, I should be able to have a high-level wizard as the BBEG in my campaign.
So, building on my previous point, perhaps by the time the beholder or high level spellcaster BBEG encounters the PCs, the PCs are high level enough that his save or die effect can't kill them outright. Perhaps it will have some lesser effect, such as halving their hit points, or moving them down the condition track, or requiring more time to take effect, etc.