Players, DMs and Save or Die

[Geron Raveneye]

How many monsters can kill a PC in one blow (excluding crits?) on the opening round?

A brief comparison

Because I like 8th level and our friend the bodak, we'll use them both. Now to find a group of 8th level PCs and an 8th level melee monster...

Ah, Stone Giant (CR 8)

So a barbarian8, a paladin8, a cleric8, a rogue8, and a sorcerer8 (all the major HD represented) encounter these two creatures. Lets assume they have little proper foreknowledge of the challenge, to avoid the chess analogy. Just raw stats vs. monsters. Neither monster is advanced in any way, and the PCs are using the human DMG averages to save me a lot of time.

The barbarian has 73 hp, 19 AC, and +8 Fort Save. Since this is the surprise round, he can't rage. Against the bodak (fort DC 15, he must roll a 7 or higher to survive. Thats a 35% failure rate). The Stone Giant makes his one attack (surprise round, standard action) with a +12 to hit (vs AC 19, only a 7 to hit, or 35% chance of missing) but does 2d8+12 damage (14-28 damage. Vs. that 73 hp, he's not dropping that round.) Even on a crit (28-56 damage) he's not dying in one blow.

The paladin has 56 hp, 21 AC, and a +10 Fort Save (yay divine grace!) The bodak's gaze is avoided on a 5 or higher (25% mortality rate). The Giant can hit him on a 9 or better (45% miss chance). His damage scale (14-28) won't kill the paladin, and a maximum critical will merely stagger him. Again, the bodak has a better chance of outright killing him.

The cleric has 55 hp, 21 AC, and a +8 Fort. The bodak has a slightly better chance of killing him than the paladin (35% miss chance, equal to barbarian). The giant has the same chance to hit him as he does the paladin (25%) and again, can't kill him on a single blow. A maximum crit would drop him to -1.

The rogue has 38 hp, 19 AC, and a +3 Fort. The bodak has a great chance of killing him (12 or better, 60% chance) while the giant (35% chance to miss) can't do enough damage in one blow to down him either (though pretty close). A crit however would (bringing him well below -10).

The poor sorcerer has 30 hp 14 AC, and a +3 Fort. His chances vs. the bodak are the same (60%) as the rogues. His low AC (10% miss chance) makes him a clear target, but get this, Even Mr. d4 CAN'T DIE FROM A SINGLE HIT (he has 2 hp left). Sure, a crit will splatter him, but that's my point.

So each time the bodak jumped out, there was a 25% to 60% chance of death. The Stone Giant COULD NOT KILL a single 8th level PC in one roll. (He'd have to crit to outright kill the rogue or sorcerer, drop the cleric, or stagger the paladin, he couldn't even drop the barbarian BEFORE rage). And as we all know, a crit from a greatclub (20/x2) is not really that common (5% to threat, normal % to confirm).

So in essence, the Stone Giant has a 5% chance of killing or dropping any but the barbarian in one "hit" while the bodak is shooting at 25-60%. Both are CR 8.

And that's why SoD is broken.

Nope, that's why you use a monster with a save-or-die effect not the same way you use something like a simple stone giant. By the way, we're again in that cycle of "save-or-die not being equivalent to melee damage output" and all the follow-up arguments that come with it. Wouldn't you agree we had that particular part of the discussion at least three times over two threads in the last week?

 

[ThirdWizard]

But, remember, everyone near the bodak is affected, plus the bodak can kill as a Standard Action as well each round.

Nope, that's why you use a monster with a save-or-die effect not the same way you use something like a simple stone giant.

How do you use it? Lets say that the PCs all know they're going to be facing a bodak. The cleric casts death ward on the paladin and sends him in alone. Now the bodak is no threat whatsoever. He's a pushover who has a 0% chance of threatening the paladin.

Is that a well designed monster?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

And then some mods remind us to not continue with cyclic arguments...I'd suggest you read back this thread, and the other one about the same topic, if you really want to know my take on that question.

If, on the other hand, all you wanted to express was an opinion that any encounter, be it with a monster, a trap, or a puzzle, where I give the characters a chance to find out the weak spot/solution to the challenge, and let them use it to neutralize whatever I had put there, is a push-over and bad game/adventure/monster design...you could have done that without the question mark at the end.

 

[Raven Crowking]

How do you use it? Lets say that the PCs all know they're going to be facing a bodak. The cleric casts death ward on the paladin and sends him in alone. Now the bodak is no threat whatsoever. He's a pushover who has a 0% chance of threatening the paladin.

Is that a well designed monster?

Why isn't it? The challenge was in determining that the bodak was there & what to do about it. Perhaps they had to find a scroll in the same dungeon while dodging this encounter. Perhaps they had to piece together clues.

(As for melee monsters whomping a PC in one blow....remember than an appropriate encounter does not mean CR = APL in 3.X. Look at the DMG for CR ranges, and you will see that appropriate encounters do indeed include melee monsters that could well hand a PC the smack down before said PC can do anything about it. If you are going to cry about SoD, I suppose we must accertain that no encounter exceeds CR = APL as well, right?)

RC

 

[hong]

Why isn't it? The challenge was in determining that the bodak was there & what to do about it.

No, no. That's the boring bit. The challenge bit is when you roll the dice and talk smack to monsters.

 

[IanArgent]

Why isn't it? The challenge was in determining that the bodak was there & what to do about it. Perhaps they had to find a scroll in the same dungeon while dodging this encounter. Perhaps they had to piece together clues.

I'm going to have to agree with Raven Crowking here (shocking as that might sound ).

An encounter is not combat. An encounter is a challenge. There are many ways to deal with an encounter.

(I'm not sold on the bodak being a good monster outside of an extremely narrow niche, however - without foreknowledge it's a terrible thing to spring on a party).

IMHO, this encounter should be "made better" by having the bodak have a "save-or-gimp" attack, that the hypothetical Death Ward either reduces the effect of, or increases the resistance against. In general, I don't like game-mechanical absolutes. I much prefer the thinking that gave us the "new" beholder. Based on that, give the bodak a melee screen, a gaze attack that slowly drains your "life force", and Death Ward giving ablative protection against the drain, increasing the defense value the bodak has to "hit" to affect someone, or both.

(As for melee monsters whomping a PC in one blow....remember than an appropriate encounter does not mean CR = APL in 3.X. Look at the DMG for CR ranges, and you will see that appropriate encounters do indeed include melee monsters that could well hand a PC the smack down before said PC can do anything about it. If you are going to cry about SoD, I suppose we must accertain that no encounter exceeds CR = APL as well, right?)

RC

Amen. Try running shadowrun sometime, where any random 2-bit ganger can spatter the PCs across the pavement.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Amen. Try running shadowrun sometime, where any random 2-bit ganger can spatter the PCs across the pavement.

Or L5R, where exploding damage dice can make a sword stroke cause 72 points of damage, which will kill every samurai with one hit.

 

[IanArgent]

Or L5R, where exploding damage dice can make a sword stroke cause 72 points of damage, which will kill every samurai with one hit.

Until the Crab Clan samurai says "The Mountain Does Not MOVE", and takes no damage, then disassembles the poor Crane courtier.... (I was enither playing the crab nor the crane in that one).

 

[Remathilis]

Nope, that's why you use a monster with a save-or-die effect not the same way you use something like a simple stone giant. By the way, we're again in that cycle of "save-or-die not being equivalent to melee damage output" and all the follow-up arguments that come with it. Wouldn't you agree we had that particular part of the discussion at least three times over two threads in the last week?

Sure. I'll admit that D&D has a place for save or die and resurrection magic (they're fine at epic levels) if you admit there is no fair way to balance their effects against other spells of equal level or other monsters of other CR.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Sure. I'll admit that D&D has a place for save or die and resurrection magic (they're fine at epic levels) if you admit there is no fair way to balance their effects against other spells of equal level or other monsters of other CR.

Sorry, fair? Define fair first, please. And to whom that fairness is supposed to apply. You say those effects are fine at epic levels...others make a lot of noise about an epic level still being threatened by a 9th level cleric. Sometimes, fair is a matter of taste.