Players, DMs and Save or Die

[ThirdWizard]

When you change the default assumptions of the game, problems may well crawl out of the woodwork on the basis of those changes.

Right. So, the question is, do we change these core assumptions that were introduced in 3.5 or do we remove Save or Die because they don't mesh with the new core assumptions.

Obviously, the 4e designers have decided to keep the new assumptions and remove save or die, probably replacing it with some different, more malleable effects. Since I like these newly introduced default assumptions of the game, I'm all for the removal of the SoD.

But, yes, in games that I run clerics and wizards who tend to memorize and use SoD spells (or who tend to turn folks into sheep and swine) tend to get noticed. When evil cults move into an area and begin kidnapping children for sacrifices, people tend to notice that something is going on.

I don't think a mechanical aspect of the game should be balanced using play style preferences. To me, constant dying at high levels due to SoD was always just the way 3e was when I first got there. Since, I have pretty much removed SoD, but I still think of high level 3e games as a game where you're supposed to drop a PC every encounter. To me, that's just the way the game is built. In other words, is is so prevalent (+ easy resurrection), I've never considered it something to be avoided in the way you're talking about.

Plus, I run a lot of exploration, going out into the great unknown. That's part of what draws me to Planescape. I have fond memories of PCs walking through a portal into a dark cavern and tossing a torch down a cliff only to have it land on a white dragon's head. Or going to fight some axiomatic illithids to find that a former ally (a wizard) had allied herself with the mind flayers and aiding the battle. Not that PCs never know what to expect, they prepare quite a bit, but implying that you can never use a wizard in a surprise encounter is just a too much for me to swallow.

And, again, it is quite possible that some NPC you meet doesn't have a SoD spell, but can still win initiative and drop you before you can act. Perhaps while banning all of these spells and monsters, we should ban higher-level-than-the-PCs characters as well.

Sure, but that's much rarer and more based on luck than anything. My problem isn't so much that PCs can die without having a chance to act, its more that with particular monsters/spells/abilities its almost always going to happen. Instead of "Wow, that orc got a critical on you!" every once in a while it's "Roll a 10 or die" for a few rounds. And, of course, there's the paper tiger effect. Bodaks, without SoD are amazingly weak, so if you use death ward they're pushovers.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I see. You're crediting a lot of old first edition modules (including some of Gary's work) as poor DMing?

Enlighten me, What IS the module with the displacer beast next to the mind flayer, with no overall theme, and where the PCs have no means to gain information about the dungeon?

So your players always know every single creature they're going to face before going into an encounter? They never meet anything unknown or unexpected?

No. My world assumes that it is possible to gain good intelligence on the basis of things like legends, rumours, asking around, talking to other nearby critters, Gather Information checks, and divination magic to follow up leads. It assumes that the DM isn't out to get you (and who wants to play with a DM who is out to get you?) and that it is the players, not the DM, who sets the agenda. It assumes that things like medusae and bodaks don't move into a neighbourhood without anyone noticing. It assumes that a bard is a worthwhile character choice, that can actually contribute to a party.

I assume a well-designed world where things like medusae and bodaks don't move into a neighbourhood without anyone noticing, and where it is therefore possible to know, ahead of time, that peering around the dark corners of one location is inherently more dangerous than peering around the dark corners of most locations.

Admittedly, both as player and as DM, I don't have a problem with occasionally having such an encounter be unexpected. Because it is possible to gain information does not mean that you always will do so.

And also, as pointed out earlier, this is really no different than the potential of a lot of "appropriate" encounters, where a monster can potentially kill you with hit point damage before you can do anything.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Right. So, the question is, do we change these core assumptions that were introduced in 3.5 or do we remove Save or Die because they don't mesh with the new core assumptions.

Change the assumptions. Apparently, 4.0 changes several.

I don't think a mechanical aspect of the game should be balanced using play style preferences.

I am not sure that this is avoidable in an open-ended game like D&D.

Plus, I run a lot of exploration, going out into the great unknown.

Yup. Me too. That doesn't mean that there isn't any means to gather intelligence, though, from talking to locals in the area that you are exploring, through examining clues that things leave about the areas they live, to using divination magic.

implying that you can never use a wizard in a surprise encounter is just a too much for me to swallow.

I assume a well-designed world where things like medusae and bodaks don't move into a neighbourhood without anyone noticing, and where it is therefore possible to know, ahead of time, that peering around the dark corners of one location is inherently more dangerous than peering around the dark corners of most locations.

Admittedly, both as player and as DM, I don't have a problem with occasionally having such an encounter be unexpected. Because it is possible to gain information does not mean that you always will do so.

And also, as pointed out earlier, this is really no different than the potential of a lot of "appropriate" encounters, where a monster can potentially kill you with hit point damage before you can do anything.


RC

 

[Remathilis]

Enlighten me, What IS the module with the displacer beast next to the mind flayer, with no overall theme, and where the PCs have no means to gain information about the dungeon?.

B1. In Search of the Unknown (though thats a little unfair, the DM DOES have a choice in that one)
B2. Keep on the Borderlands (medusa in a closet anyone?)
I2. Tomb of the Lizard King (trust me, there are more than lizardmen in there)
T1. The Village of Hommlet (Ogres next to brigands next to gnolls next to ghouls in the moat house)
S2. White Plume Mountain (a giant crab, a vampire, and an ogre magi?)
U1. The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh

Those are some of the ones I own (and my library is far from complete). I'd also like to direct you to Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, which manages to sandwich every monster from CR 6-16 in one huge dungeon.

 

[Raven Crowking]

B1. In Search of the Unknown (though thats a little unfair, the DM DOES have a choice in that one)
B2. Keep on the Borderlands (medusa in a closet anyone?)
I2. Tomb of the Lizard King (trust me, there are more than lizardmen in there)
T1. The Village of Hommlet (Ogres next to brigands next to gnolls next to ghouls in the moat house)
S2. White Plume Mountain (a giant crab, a vampire, and an ogre magi?)
U1. The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh

Those are some of the ones I own (and my library is far from complete). I'd also like to direct you to Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, which manages to sandwich every monster from CR 6-16 in one huge dungeon.

I think you should go back and read some of those modules again, my friend. I'll use B2 as an example. Do you really believe that no one in the caves area knows that there is a medusa? If you read the text, Gary is quite clear that the areas interact with each other, and that there is quite a bit of knowledge about the basics of other areas. The Shunned Cave is shunned for a reason.

RC

 

[Remathilis]

I assume a well-designed world where things like medusae and bodaks don't move into a neighbourhood without anyone noticing, and where it is therefore possible to know, ahead of time, that peering around the dark corners of one location is inherently more dangerous than peering around the dark corners of most locations.

RC

You obviously don't play in a "points of light" (to borrow 4e's term) style setting where monster DO live in hidden dungeons and tombs without people noticing, far, far from human civilization and where the local rumors and legends end 20 some years before the adventure starts (We don't go up to Bone Hill, haven't for years. Rumor says its haunted. No one's ever come back alive). We can't always just look up what monsters are rumored to live in Bone Hill. We might know the goblins come to raid from there, but that doesn't mean that anyone knows (or have any reason to know) that the goblinoids made a deal with a local medusa to act as a guardian of their lair for a (more than) fair share of the treasure (and not to stonegaze them).

Because otherwise, your saying "Save or Die is fine as long as you are a good enough DM to know when not to use it" If the only way to use SoD is to plan the whole game around it, it sounds like a big sore spot in the rules.

 

[Cadfan]

It seems to me that some SoD supporters want SoD to inhabit the same place in the game world that is inhabited by encounters above the party's appropriate ECL, except without giving the monsters the CR that would accurately depict them.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

You obviously don't play in a "points of light" (to borrow 4e's term) style setting where monster DO live in hidden dungeons and tombs without people noticing, far, far from human civilization and where the local rumors and legends end 20 some years before the adventure starts (We don't go up to Bone Hill, haven't for years. Rumor says its haunted. No one's ever come back alive). We can't always just look up what monsters are rumored to live in Bone Hill. We might know the goblins come to raid from there, but that doesn't mean that anyone knows (or have any reason to know) that the goblinoids made a deal with a local medusa to act as a guardian of their lair for a (more than) fair share of the treasure (and not to stonegaze them).

Because otherwise, your saying "Save or Die is fine as long as you are a good enough DM to know when not to use it" If the only way to use SoD is to plan the whole game around it, it sounds like a big sore spot in the rules.

Well, how about not slaughtering those goblin guards that roam the perimeter, or those goblin raiders left behind without their wolves, but capture them instead and interrogate them about the Bone Hill complex in order to gain more recent information about what you are going to face? Bribe them with survival, threaten them with pain, or promise them gold (i.e. use your Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy skill) and make them talk.

I admit that this seems to be a rare occurence...even players who usually are all about information gathering about their target when playing Shadowrun seem to turn into Kitchen Aid mince machines when slipping into D&D characters. It's really funny sometimes.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Change the assumptions. Apparently, 4.0 changes several.

I think it's worth pointing out that (I don't think) any of the changed assumptions are classic D&D ones. Well, some prep concepts are getting simpler, which could be said to be classic assumptions, but not much beyond that.

I assume a well-designed world where things like medusae and bodaks don't move into a neighbourhood without anyone noticing

I'm wondering what is "well-designed" about that world. Especially when dealing with intelligent (or semi-intelligent) creatures who might not go around killing things willy-nilly. If the adventure revolves around the medusa moving into town, then sure, but what if it is just a tangential aside to the adventure? Eventually, won't things look very contrived with the DM leaving breadcrumbs all around. Every medusa lair isn't going to have statues all around it after all. Right?

and where it is therefore possible to know, ahead of time, that peering around the dark corners of one location is inherently more dangerous than peering around the dark corners of most locations.

The 3rd vs 2nd level of a dungeon?

And also, as pointed out earlier, this is really no different than the potential of a lot of "appropriate" encounters, where a monster can potentially kill you with hit point damage before you can do anything.

Yeah, but, at least in my mind, there's a difference between a lucky shot or someone getting really unlucky with surprise/initiative rolls and a death attack. Take implosion. 1/round until you break their concentration. And, a CR 13 slaad can do this!

 

[Remathilis]

Well, how about not slaughtering those goblin guards that roam the perimeter, or those goblin raiders left behind without their wolves, but capture them instead and interrogate them about the Bone Hill complex in order to gain more recent information about what you are going to face? Bribe them with survival, threaten them with pain, or promise them gold (i.e. use your Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy skill) and make them talk.

I admit that this seems to be a rare occurrence...even players who usually are all about information gathering about their target when playing Shadowrun seem to turn into Kitchen Aid mince machines when slipping into D&D characters. It's really funny sometimes.

And if those goblins don't know, outright lie, or won't go down without a fight? If the answer to a particular rule-problem is "change the way you play D&D" I think thats a failing of the rule, not the players or the DM...