Players, DMs and Save or Die

[Raven Crowking]

Right, so let's refine it to read, "systems that estimate the appropriate party level for a particular challenge can't handle X, therefore in games like D&D, which use X, such an estimation system is broken."

FIFY.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If Save or Die is incompatible with the challenge rating/encounter level system, which should be removed: SoD or CR?

IMHO? CR.

There are systems that I believe do a far better job at guestimating the power level of a particular monster, and I prefer as many options as possible to model effects within the confines of the game.

In general, if a system A is one that allows modelling, and system B allows guestimation, I will nearly always (if not always) believe A is better for my game than B.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

First off, save or die doesn't necessarily mean that the difference in encounter difficulty for a party that is unprepared/prepared will be "much more lethal than standard"/"cakewalk". Ideally, the difference should be "potentially lethal"/"still challenging". Admittedly, there are save or die creatures in 3e for which the former is true (e.g. the bodak).

Oddly enough, the DMG suggests that a certain % of encounters should be "easy if handled properly".


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Dr. Awkward cited 65% as the limit the probability to roll a 1 on XdN approaches for N > 10 and X => infinite (which assumes a 5% chance of death from 20 bodaks or so). For 5d20, the chance on a 1 is more like 1-[(20-1)/20]^5, which is around 23%, if my math hasn't left me completely. So no, 66% is not the minimum. And unless you roam the Abyss, or a Bodak lair, you shouldn't meet that many of them in one encounter anyway.

Please do not confuse this discussion with facts.

To me, if all monsters conform to a relatively narrow spectrum of usability, then the design is boring and uninspiring. I'd rather have some monsters that come with an outrageously dangerous ability to make the players use their characters' abilities to their best before they meet the enemy in order to prepare for it, and reward that behaviour by actually making the preparations pay off. The challenge in those cases is not in surviving a toe-to-toe battle with the monster, but in finding its weakness and exploit that, so the monster is not a threat anymore.

I agree with this oh-so-much.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Interesting Tidbits from James Jacobs

For full text, go here: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3875381&postcount=40

James Jacobs is talking about Pathfinder, not SoD, but I think some of his comments apply:

Not all encounters should present equal challenges. That's one of my overarching philosophies of adventure design.

Mine too.

I think the main problem here isn't that some monsters have low armor classes or glass jaws... it's that the CR system doesn't work as well as it should. According to the rules, a 20th level human commoner is the same CR as an 18th level lich wizard. You get the same XP for each. Likewise, a fighter with the appropriate amount of gear who spends that gear on stuff other than armor (and therefore has a really low armor class) and only picks feats from the PHB is the same CR as a fighter who spends all his money on armor and a weapon and numbercrunches his feats from dozens of non-core supplements.

Apparently, though, some folks think this system does exactly what it says it does.....

ANYway, if you haven't thrown some wimpy foes at your PCs, you should try it out some time. If the PCs come out of the battle feeling heroic and proud and tough, and if the players seem to have had a good time of it, isn't that good for the game?

Agreed. In which case, what is the problem with a monster being a glass canon? You find a way to deal with the scary part and then take the thing down. Seems like it could be fun to me.

RC

 

[FireLance]

Oddly enough, the DMG suggests that a certain % of encounters should be "easy if handled properly".

To be frank, that's one piece of DMG advice that I tend to ignore. The range of challenges that I like to present my players tends to be narrower than what the DMG recommends.

 

[Raven Crowking]

To be frank, that's one piece of DMG advice that I tend to ignore. The range of challenges that I like to present my players tends to be narrower than what the DMG recommends.

Nonetheless, the "glass canon" is entirely in keeping with the design philosophy of 3.x. When you diverge from the design philosophy of a game, you should expect to make changes!

I diverge from 3.X design philosophy quite a lot; hence my houserules. I just happen to diverge in a direction where the occasional SoD effect adds to, rather than detracts from, my game.

RC

 

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Geron Raveneye
Dr. Awkward cited 65% as the limit the probability to roll a 1 on XdN approaches for N > 10 and X => infinite (which assumes a 5% chance of death from 20 bodaks or so). For 5d20, the chance on a 1 is more like 1-[(20-1)/20]^5, which is around 23%, if my math hasn't left me completely. So no, 66% is not the minimum. And unless you roam the Abyss, or a Bodak lair, you shouldn't meet that many of them in one encounter anyway.

Remember, you have 4 PC's. You have a 23% chance of ONE PC dying. But, you need to include the fact that 20 saves are being made in the first round. Thus, 66% chance of dying. I'm sorry, I thought I made that clear at the outset.

I'm not saying that one specific PC has a 66% chance of dying, I'm saying that a group of 4 PC's has a 66% chance of having any one PC dying. Whether you use 5 bodaks (which are used in a Dungeon adventure from the Savage tide AP - since RC is quoting Paizo at the moment but ignoring that) or 1 bodak which lives 4 rounds, it doesn't matter. On 20 saving throws, you have a 66% chance MINIMUM of PC death.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

So we're actually talking about 5 Bodaks getting the jump on 4 20th level characters, and each character meeting the gaze of 5 Bodaks at the same time, or am I misunderstanding you again? Because as far as I understood the Death Gaze of the Bodak, it only works when the character meets the Bodak's gaze directly. Also, the simplest solution written down in the MM is Averting your gaze, meaning you look elsewhere on the bodak, gaining a 50% chance to not have to make a save at all without incurring the penalty for blind fighting.
I'm sorry Hussar, but while your example isn't as overinflated as others that argued about save or die being broken with examples of hundreds of 9th level clerics running around the setting when the characters hit high levels, it's still very much in the realm of the academical, in my opinion, to be really convincing. Especially such things as gaze attacks have very specific parameters before they work, in contrast to area attacks such as breath weapons, and there are workaround for such attacks before you even have to make a save.
Spells with death effects are a different pair of shoes though. And if you can point me at a monster with a save or die breath weapon (Hmmmm, undead dragon breathing Cloudkill? Ideas...), we can easily discuss that.
But claiming that a 4 man group of whatever level has to make 5 saves per character per round when meeting 5 Bodaks is a bit unbelievable, especially when there is a 50% chance for each to not even having to make one save. Remember what I said in the other thread, about not believing number-niggling is any solution to this discussion? Same goes for this thread, since there is no good hold on the real numbers, and any percentage we come up with on the fly is flawed from the beginning, because it is far too generalized to be of any use, and because we can throw numbers at each other's feet as long as they suit us and still say nothing much.

 

[Hussar]

Averting your eyes gives a 20% miss chance. That means the fight is going to last longer and you cannot target targets by sight (negating a number of spells). It also only works 1/2 the time. Sure, it messes with the chances, but, in any case, it's still much higher than 0. 5 CR 8 creatures shouldn't even register against 20th level PC's. Yet, here we've got a chance of a PC death that's still significant.

((No, I can't do the exact math. ))

Note that with gaze attacks, you make a save on your turn, so long as you are within range. Put 5 bodaks into a 20x20 room. There, everyone makes a saving throw. With an extra 5 saving throws on the bodak's turn as well. Having an encounter that starts at 30 feet isn't terribly unusual.

What specific parameters does a gaze weapon have before it works. From the srd:

Each character within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw (which can be a Fortitude or Will save) each round at the beginning of his turn.

There's nothing difficult about it. If you start your turn within 30 feet of a gaze attack creature, you make your save(s). Plus the forced save on the creature's turn (although that only affects one target).

I do agree with you that SoD spells are different creature. Usually, they only affect one target. That's lethal, but, not totally out of the ballpark. I'd much prefer a slower effect though. Get tapped with Finger of Death and you gradually weaken until, X hours (days/weeks whatever) you die unless you get saved in the meantime.

The problem with this, is spells like this don't work for players. Opponents aren't going to survive encounters (usually) so effects that don't come into play until several hours later are totally wasted. A flesh to stone effect that requires time is great for monsters, but pretty much useless for players.

I'd much rather just chuck the whole bag entirely. It's far too lethal to the PC's and doesn't really add anything to the game that you couldn't do in any number of other ways.