Players, DMs and Save or Die

[Amphimir Míriel]

It's the ancient art of inaccupuncture. If you stab someone repeatedly you may eventually jab them in the right pressure point to alleviate their condition.

Similar to this is reverse Feng Shui. With regular feng shui you rearrange furniture to bring health to someone's body and wealth into their home. Reverse feng shui you use furniture to rearrange someone's body and then remove wealth from their home.

And don't even get me started on retrophrenology....

You, sir, win the internet.

I can't wait to show this to my best friend (he's an accupuncturist)

 

[CanadienneBacon]

As an oft-time DM, I hate SoD. I want my players to sweat it out, to struggle for their victories, not be one-spelled into oblivion before they realize what happened. Now, save or suck, I have no problem with. Short term status effects that take the character out of play don't bother me so much, and can actually contribute to building tension.

This raises an interesting point. When I'm DMing--or, really, playing for that matter--and I use a save-or-die spell, I normally do not whip it out at the start of combat. I normally use that kind of thing toward the middle or maybe at the end of a combat. A save-or-die spell is usually a last resort for me, both when I DM and when I play.

For those of you who are using save-or-die spells, at what point in the encounter do you bust out that spell?

 

[hong]

This raises an interesting point. When I'm DMing--or, really, playing for that matter--and I use a save-or-die spell, I normally do not whip it out at the start of combat. I normally use that kind of thing toward the middle or maybe at the end of a combat. A save-or-die spell is usually a last resort for me, both when I DM and when I play.

For those of you who are using save-or-die spells, at what point in the encounter do you bust out that spell?

As it stands, there's typically no mechanical reason NOT to use instakill spells at the start. One reason to delay might be to cast a dispel first, in case your target has save buffs up. Other than that though, the earlier you take out someone, the less risk there is that they'll take you out instead.

Now typically, people often gloss over this in the interests of not short-circuiting the potential for a more involving combat. This is because we're not playing chess, Advanced Squad Leader or coin flipping, where the only thing that matters is the result. But that doesn't mean the problem isn't there.

 

[Grog]

This raises an interesting point. When I'm DMing--or, really, playing for that matter--and I use a save-or-die spell, I normally do not whip it out at the start of combat. I normally use that kind of thing toward the middle or maybe at the end of a combat. A save-or-die spell is usually a last resort for me, both when I DM and when I play.

For those of you who are using save-or-die spells, at what point in the encounter do you bust out that spell?

They always get used right away in my games. It doesn't make sense to wait. What's the point of casting Finger of Death on a target with only 10 hit points remaining? A Magic Missile will work just as well at that point.

 

[Gloombunny]

This raises an interesting point. When I'm DMing--or, really, playing for that matter--and I use a save-or-die spell, I normally do not whip it out at the start of combat. I normally use that kind of thing toward the middle or maybe at the end of a combat. A save-or-die spell is usually a last resort for me, both when I DM and when I play.

Interestingly, 4e might promote that sort of usage by having save-or-die effects that only work on "bloodied" targets.

 

[WarlockLord]

When I attack with SoDs, it usually takes about 3 rounds.

1 round to dispel magic the target(s)
1 round to debuff target saves
1 round to cast the spell.

This is how I usually have my BBEGs attack. It gives the PCs a few rounds of battle before the dying begins.

As a DM, I can't say I care if the PCs instakill my BBEGs. There are always more. Oh, did you SoD the BBEG I spent two sessions building up? I bet you didn't know he had a necromancer brother.

 

[ptolemy18]

Save-or-dies... they're totally cool with me.

AS A PLAYER: If my character dies from some save-or-die effect, then that's just bad luck. I can't overstate enough that ***it is unhealthy and immature to be so attached to a particular character that you feel resentful or "cheated" if you lose them to a save-or-die effect* And I can't help but thinking that this is a motivation on the part of a lot of the players. If the DM overuses save-or-dies and keeps killing your characters, then that's a problem with having an obnoxious killer DM, not a problem with the system.

AS A DM: I understand that some DMs feel that save-or-dies may cause the potential destruction of their plot by killing some major NPC, etc., in a dramatic way. Well... **deal with it.** If a major NPC goes out to give a speech and gets in range of a Finger of Death and doesn't have some Death Ward magic in effect and fails their save, then you should have known that you risked it, and you should have a contingency plotline prepared. This is even stupider than complaining about the existence of Detect Lies and Know Alignment and Speak With Dead because you can't do that obviously-full-of-holes-and-not-meant-for-the-standard-D&D-setting murder mystery plot you were planning.

Only bad DMs drive the plot along on rails where it is "necessary" that the players accept the quest, or "necessary" that NPC X survives 'till the end. Not that a little bit of railroading isn't okay... but you have to be flexible. If the players kill your dumb end-of-the-dungeon dragon with a single failed spell, then you either let them enjoy their victory, or you have another monster waiting to take the dragon's place, so at least there's a fight scene.

D&D is about improvisation. It is about choices. It is about risk and randomness. You can never predict exactly whether your character is gonna die, you can never predict exactly whether your NPC is gonna die. You have to prepare for it, either as a DM or a player. If you don't, you are spoiling yourself.

SIDE NOTE: ....now, Save or Die effects that only work if the character is "blooded", that's a compromise I might be able to get behind...

 

[ptolemy18]

As a DM, I can't say I care if the PCs instakill my BBEGs. There are always more. Oh, did you SoD the BBEG I spent two sessions building up? I bet you didn't know he had a necromancer brother.

So, SO true. A million zillion times true.

A good DM has either (1) the courage and quick-wittedness to let the players break their carefully constructed plot and roll with it or (2) the tenacity and quick-wittedness to somehow railroad them back into the plot, even if they *do* make some insanely unlikely roll or kill some important NPC/monster/whatever.

This is why I dislike railroading and "you must do this and this and this in this order" tube-structured, quest-structured linear adventures. They are always inflexible and a good party can always "break" them if they want to. Give me an oldschool module where there's just a dungeon map and let the PCs figure out how to defeat the dungeon and where to enter and so forth. Or give me a module where it's all about diplomacy and clashing factions and there's just a list of statted NPCs and no real structure and it's up to the PCs and the DM to figure out how they interact and how they meet eachother. This is the meat and drink of gaming.

This whole discussion reminds me of that awesome KoDT comic where Brian sacrifices his own character to insta-kill the vampire lord who they were supposed to spend the entire campaign fighting.

 

[Lanefan]

Poll fixed...my option exists now...duly voted.

ptolemy18, your last two posts just saved me a bunch of typing. Thanks.

Lanefan

 

[hong]

If you don't, you are spoiling yourself.

You say this like it's a negative thing.