Players, DMs and Save or Die

[Remathilis]

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.

Define fair? I've done nearly a week of that. SoD is not fair because

1.) It doesn't scale with level, unlike weapon damage or ability damage (or other status ailments)
2.) It can remove a PC before he has a chance to react.
3.) Its only counter is another spell that completely neuters it.
4.) It has only one check against its effectiveness that ignores other PC attributes (like ability score, level or hp total)
5.) It removes a PC from play (hence fun) for a long time if not permanently based on a single die.
6.) It throws CR completely out of whack.
7.) It doesn't allow any drama of survival (will my hp hold out, will the cleric heal me before my dex drops to 0) and instead trades long periods of tension, drama and heroic action into 30 tense seconds with a twenty sided die.
8.) It can end any encounter anti-climatically with either a no-challenge boss kill or a TPK.
9.) It cheapens death, reducing to another status ailment for the cleric to cure
10.) It unfairly targets poor-fort saved classes due to the wide gap between good and poor saves. Good fort-save classes can pass with ease, poor fort save classes have a disproportionally high chance of death. Unlike hp which scales much smoother (see stone giant example).

I'd personally put it as an effect a caster no lower than 21st (probably 25th) could manifest. When your near gods in power, then you can toss around life-or-death effects at will.

With all of that, I'm done. I don't think I can add any other example, anecdote, or argument that will convince you (or anyone else Pro SoD) that the game will be better off without them. I'm glad I'll be able to open up my 4e books and not worry about them again. I'm glad a large amount of the Enworld population agrees with me.

Take care and good gaming.

 

[RFisher]

Interestingly, I picked up my 1e PHB, went to the end of the MU spells, & started looking backwards for "save or die" spells.

Power Word, Kill: No saving throw, but it does have hp limits.

Symbol (Death): It looks like the death symbol doesn't allow a save, but it also has a hp limit.

Interesting.

You could do similar things with other "save or die" effects. Perhaps the bodak's gaze doesn't kill you but puts you in a deathlike state that can only be reversed by exposure to the noonday sun.

FWIW, I will agree that this--& possibly the 4e beholder's gradual stoning--can be very interesting in their own right.

Is that a well designed monster?

Personally, I think the bodak is an awful example for this discussion. Even without his death gaze, I can't imagine using that monster except in very specific circumstances.

I don't think it's a badly designed monster. It's cool when players can use planning & characters can use their abilities to turn a possibly fatal encounter into a cakewalk.

But then, I don't take the CR system very seriously. There's no way a single number can give you anything but a very vague idea of how big a challenge a monster is going to be without greatly simplifying the game to remove a bunch of the axes/variables involved.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Heh. Then you agree with me twice, because I've already stated that I think "Save or Effect" is better than "Save or Die" in most cases.

I just don't buy this bit about all cases, or that you had no choices or chances to change things before getting into that SoD position. In a well-run game, at least. In a game where you wake up with a bodak in your bed, things might be different.

RC

 

[hong]

Heh. Then you agree with me twice, because I've already stated that I think "Save or Effect" is better than "Save or Die" in most cases.

I just don't buy this bit about all cases,

Most == all, for all practical purposes.

or that you had no choices or chances to change things before getting into that SoD position.

Well, one could always play SimMoistureFarmer, I suppose.

 

[Hussar]

I'm glad RFisher brought up Symbol of Death.

Here's a question - if SoD effects should only be brought out if the party has a reasonable chance of foreknowledge and countering, should SoD EVER be used as a trap?

Since we're on the topic of actual events, how about this spoiler from Savage Tide's Enemy of My Enemy - spoiler below (Hey, how do I get those nifty spoiler tags?)

Spoiler

In the module, the party has pissed off Demogorgon enough that Demo sends a hit squad after them. The hit squad is mounted on 5 Bodak Tyrannosaurs. And, since it's a hit squad, they should be getting the jump on the party.

With 5 bodaks, and a party of 4, you have pretty much a guaranteed PC death in the first round (20 saves=at least 1 auto fail).

Now, if you say this is a bad encounter, you're basically arguing that the DM should play his monsters stupid - after all, bodaks make perfect assassins. A demon lord should have bodak's at his disposal, so, it makes a fair bit of sense to have bodak assassin squads.

If you say this is a good encounter, then you have no problem with an encounter guaranteed to kill at least one PC.

Which is it?

 

[Ahglock]

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.

No fair way?

Who would admit to that. Just because 3e has an unfair system for save or dies doesn't mean a fair one isn't out there. As pointed out by RFisher a couple posts down form yours spells like pwer word kill exist. They work within the HP system if you have below 100 HP you are dead no save. I can see a fair system being worked out of that. Targets have to be under X HP to be effected by the spell and you have to hit there will defense.

Removing something that doesn't work is a good idea if you can't fix it. If you can come up with a fix, fix it instead, more options ins a good thing.

 

[hong]

No fair way?

Who would admit to that. Just because 3e has an unfair system for save or dies doesn't mean a fair one isn't out there. As pointed out by RFisher a couple posts down form yours spells like pwer word kill exist. They work within the HP system if you have below 100 HP you are dead no save. I can see a fair system being worked out of that. Targets have to be under X HP to be effected by the spell and you have to hit there will defense.

I like that, and you like that, but other people complained that it was too metagamey. Silly other people.

 

[Ahglock]

I mentioned this concept much earlier in the thread.

A gradual effect would be fine as long as:

a) there are multiple solutions to the problem.

b) one of those solutions is save every round. If all of the saves fail, the PC dies. The first save that succeeds stops the progression any further. So in SWSE terms, a persistent lowering on the conditions table results each round a save is not made.

Unfortunately, if there are no saves in 4E, how does one save every round? I do not think it is probable that any such solution will therefore exist in 4E (unless they implement a variable Will, Reflex, and Fort Defense special rule that a player can roll D20 + modifiers and use it for Defense instead of using 10 + modifiers).

But, I do think that both a and b need to exist to satisfy some portion of the anti- save or die crowd. Having just a means that some scenarios might exist where none of the solutions can be found (regardless of whether the DM put them there or not, the players might still not find them). Having just b means that it is still save or die, the odds are just different.

I do not believe that PCs have to be saved from death in all cases. I do believe, however, that PCs have to have roleplaying / tactical possible solutions in all cases. The dice should not strictly rule die or don't die with no possibility of player reaction.

Yes and I generally think its a good idea and did then, though I can see some balance issues with monsters who don't have a remedy. It may trivialize things like a dire bear encounter. The save every round idea could work for monsters, or maybe you have to make an attack roll vs the fort/will defense every round? Killing the spell caster first being the universal cure. That could get incredibly tedious as you track multiple save or die effects every round while implementing new ones with the beholder.

 

[Ahglock]

I like that, and you like that, but other people complained that it was too metagamey. Silly other people.

So is power attack and I still love it.

 

[Jhulae]

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.

Ummmm.

Rrriiiiiight.

*Both* of those monsters (Stone giant and Bodak) are on the Random Encounter Table. So, I guess people *are* supposed to use monsters with SoD effects the same way as something like a 'simple stone giant' in the current edition.