Players, DMs and Save or Die

[KarinsDad]

Sometimes its ok to be wrong.

Yup.

I think the issue here is that all of the players at the table, DMs included, tend to like PC continuity and save or die can disrupt continuity.

Players and DMs also like PC deaths to have some meaning, and save and die rarely has significant meaning. Meaningless PC deaths are, well, meaningless. Hence, save or die is typically, well, meaningless.

 

[KarinsDad]

Lets say I played the hobgoblins intelligently, instead of fun-but-really-stupid.

Casting against the PC with the lowest save versus the chosen spell would yield about a 50/50 chance of the PC failing the save, with the odds checked about 6 times per day.

.5^6=.015625
1-.015626

That's a 98.4375% chance that at least one PC would die on a given day.

So it might as well be "just die" in the long term.

I have to laugh at funny math.

How many hobgoblin spellcasters have ANY save or die spells in a war campaign let alone every single spell?

How many PCs allow the hobgoblin spellcaster to survive past the first two rounds so that 6 offensive spells (and save or die at that) per day can be cast by the Hobgoblins?

If you are going to try to prove a point, at least try to put up some logical numbers instead of extremist ones.

 

[Stalker0]

I completely understand the desires of the save or die camp. They want magic at high level to be deadly, they want a way to challenge players more than just "I take away some of your 200+ hitpoints" etc.

The problem is that there are many other ways to do this, and from those options, save or die is a horrible way to go about it.

Here are some examples:

Vile Damage: For those not familiar with BOVD, vile damage is basically damage that can't be healed by normal means. This means that damage you take in a fight can't just be whisked away by a heal spell. All of a sudden, that damage your fighter is taking is REAL damage, which creates a sense of urgency in the player.

Weakness Spells: Take a hypothetical spell called "Vulnerability" that on a failed save, means you take a -4 to AC and 10 more damage from each hit. A BBEG casts that on the front line guy, and suddenly his army of mook guards is a lot more threatening. Now the party has to decide if they should try to dispel the magic, take out the guards 1st, or kill the BBEG and hope that mooks don't do too much.

Status Spells with a twist: Take your standard petrification spell. Now instead of it working immediatley on round 1, it works over the course of 3 rounds (there's a spell treasury spell that already does something like this). But lets add a twist, if a character is petrified from more than 1 day, he's gone for good. The BBEG takes out a player, and then in the course of the fight, manages to teleport away with the statue. The rest of the party must fight off the mooks and then go rescue their friend before its too late.

The DM then says to the petrified player: Hey man, why don't you make a temp character I'll introduce for this adventure. You can play him until the party saves you, or if you fall, you might want to keep the new one.


The advantage of these kinds of effects is that they have a strong POTENTIAL to be deadly to a player. That potential is what creates drama and excitement. If a fighter is looking at his fellow frantically asking for backup because all the mooks do double damage against him, that's exciting. If he throws up his chracter sheet in disgust because he's dead and there's nothing he can do, that just creates tension.

Further, it helps create party unity. If a player dies, he's forgotten, often looted. The party might res him or not depending on the level. If a player takes a big effect in combat, the rest of the party may have to take up the slack, protecting that character. From a roleplaying standpoint, that creates bonding between the chracters, but it also creates bonds between the players as well. Nothing to make a player feel better than a high five and a thanks from a grateful player whose character you just saved.


In closing, save or dies are inefficient mechanics and should be dropped, but the niche they provide should not die. They should be replaced by better mechanics.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I completely understand the desires of the save or die camp. They want magic at high level to be deadly, they want a way to challenge players more than just "I take away some of your 200+ hitpoints" etc.
...
In closing, save or dies are inefficient mechanics and should be dropped, but the niche they provide should not die. They should be replaced by better mechanics.

Of course I can't speak for the rest of the "save or die camp" but from what I read here, you don't really understand my point of view on save or die effects, which is pretty much demonstrated by those "replacements" you are suggesting. All of those are already in existence in one form or another in the d20 system in the form of spells or magical effects....and they simply don't have the same effect or flavour as what you are suggesting they should replace. They are not different mechanics for the same niche, they are a different niche altogether. From my point of view, what you're moving for is an elimination of that niche, plain and simple. If that was your intention, I can't say from here.

To put up two simple examples of what save-or-die effects can portray...

- Tales of Earthsea, the Ghibli movie. The final showdown between Cob and Arren. That is a save-or-die effect right there....sucks for Cob Arren made his save, though.

- Harry Potter, Order of the Phoenix. The Avara Kedavra curse on Sirius Black, that's a save-or-die effect...sucks that Black didn't make his save. I could as well include the same spell killing Dumbledore, arguably one of the most powerful wizards in that setting.

That's two examples for save-or-die effects that affected the "heroes" of those stories, and killed one in one case. And, with the exception of them causing a bigass amount of Con damage or hit point damage instead, there isn't much that could simulate them better. I'm sure a lot will disagree and propose alternative methods, but from my point of view, there aren't that many, and cutting out save-or-die means one less option for the DM to portray certain effects.

 

[Stalker0]

- Tales of Earthsea, the Ghibli movie. The final showdown between Cob and Arren. That is a save-or-die effect right there....sucks for Cob Arren made his save, though.

- Harry Potter, Order of the Phoenix. The Avara Kedavra curse on Sirius Black, that's a save-or-die effect...sucks that Black didn't make his save. I could as well include the same spell killing Dumbledore, arguably one of the most powerful wizards in that setting.

While in Harry Potter world there is no save, its pretty much Power Word: Kill

I will agree to your point that there is no substitute to the actual 1 spell = 1 death other than save or die.

My point was that for many supporting save or die, what are they looking for? If they are in fact wanting to be able to destroy a player with a single spell, then save or die is the only real way to do that (other than just a crazy large amount of hitpoint damage).

However, this causes a lot of clash with the no save or die camp.

Still, there is a more primal aspect to the save or die, the concept that a single spell can change the course of a fight, that can cause a great surge in dramatic tension, that can show how powerful high level wizards are.

These concepts can be preserved in other forms of spells, ones that still give the hero a chance to overcome them with more than a single die roll. In this way, we can preserve some of the benefits of save or die spells while removing one of their great negatives in many people's eyes.

 

[Cadfan]

I have to laugh at funny math.

How many hobgoblin spellcasters have ANY save or die spells in a war campaign let alone every single spell?

How many PCs allow the hobgoblin spellcaster to survive past the first two rounds so that 6 offensive spells (and save or die at that) per day can be cast by the Hobgoblins?

If you are going to try to prove a point, at least try to put up some logical numbers instead of extremist ones.

I should have made my point more clear.

In a given day of full on warfare combat, the players could reasonably expect to encounter 4+ hobgoblin spellcasters (and a lot more hobgoblin warriors, plus accompanying monsters). I don't expect any individual enemy spellcaster to last more than one or two rounds, IF I give them save-or-die spells, because that trains players to assume that any spellcaster is automatically the biggest, most horrible threat on the battlefield at any given moment.

The way I really ran them, in the actual campaign, was to give them quirky but interesting spells. A hobgoblin spellcaster with a skull helmet might cast animate dead, one with blood red robes probably casts fire spells, etc. I carefully selected so that the players would NOT encounter any save-or-die spells, because doing so would wreck my ability to use the spellcasters with the frequency I wanted.

 

[KarinsDad]

- Harry Potter, Order of the Phoenix. The Avara Kedavra curse on Sirius Black, that's a save-or-die effect...sucks that Black didn't make his save. I could as well include the same spell killing Dumbledore, arguably one of the most powerful wizards in that setting.

That's two examples for save-or-die effects that affected the "heroes" of those stories, and killed one in one case.

I understand your POV.

I do not agree with it, but I understand it.

Yes, save or die illustrates Sirius' situation here. No doubt.

But, Sirius is an NPC. Harry is the PC. If it would have happened to Harry, the (book and) movie would have sucked and the adventure would have been over. In fact, the movie may have never been made, at least in accordance with the book.

And in fact, in Harry Potter, it is called a Curse. And, a very powerful and rare one at that. In 3E DND, save and die spells exist all over the place. Even a first level Sleep spell is effectively save or die. The probability of it happening to a PC is high compared to the Harry Potter universe where such curses are extremely rare and almost never cast, so, apples and oranges.


Do you understand the problems with your example? The difference between a book and a game is that the author forces the outcome in the book. In the game, the outcome is random and when the rules allow for random death, it could be any PC or NPC that dies. Or even, a TPK.


The question becomes, how do we get rid of save or die for use against PCs (which totally suck except in the most extreme of meaningful and dramatic situations) and possibly keep them for use against NPCs (where it might be cool for the people at the table)?

One way is to have Action Points which allow for a save re-roll. PCs get them. NPCs do not (without a special feat or something for BBEGs).

This might seem contrived, but Fate Points, Luck Points, or Action Points are already contrived.


The problem for 4E is, saves are no longer rolled by the players. So, re-rolls might not be an option. However, an alternative is to allow players to roll their Will Defense or Fort Defense or Reflex Defense if the normal Defense is not high enough against a given magical attack, make a roll (i.e. use D20 + modifiers instead of 10 + modifiers for the defense). If they roll a 20, they auto-save. If they fail, they could still use an Action Point to re-roll again. They could blow through all of their Action Points trying this over and over again.

Death is still an option, but death by save or die tends to use resources instead of actually killing. For PCs.


Another technique is to have save or die spells in the game, but write them up as rare and mysterious spells that virtually no one has. PCs have a nearly impossible time getting them and only re-occurring villains of the highest caliber should ever have them. Make them Epic even. That might mitigate the issue somewhat. When PCs do face them, it should be as rare as artifacts so that the overall chance of an eventual save or die for a given PC is rather low.


Personally, I say just get rid of save or die. The nitch as you call it really does not need to be in the game since it is a nitch that really should only be used against NPCs. It's totally anti-climatic and lame against PCs and I do prefer there to be few special rules for PCs. IMO.

 

[Remathilis]

- Harry Potter, Order of the Phoenix. The Avara Kedavra curse on Sirius Black, that's a save-or-die effect...sucks that Black didn't make his save. I could as well include the same spell killing Dumbledore, arguably one of the most powerful wizards in that setting.

However, neither of them really fall into the protagonist setting. Instead, both are mentors and as such, need to die to allow Harry to fulfill his destiny without the aid of a more powerful ally (the same reason

Spoiler

Snape

has to die). Thus, Voldemorte's death curse, while an excellent example of a death effect, is more of a plot device type of effect.

 

[Remathilis]

Players and DMs also like PC deaths to have some meaning, and save and die rarely has significant meaning. Meaningless PC deaths are, well, meaningless. Hence, save or die is typically, well, meaningless.

QFT

Every example of a literary character's death that has gotten a mention (Sirius, Boromir) served a function to the story. Their deaths had greater impact on the work, and are examples of a character sacrificing himself for some greater good.

I'd be interested to find any work of fiction where the author kills off a defined character (not a red shirt) for no larger reason and then forgets about him for the rest of the work (a truly disposable character). Effectively, that is the literary equivalent to save or die: a random meaningless death that adds nothing to the larger narrative and serves only to be a "sucks to be you" to the Player.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I'd be interested to find any work of fiction where the author kills off a defined character (not a red shirt) for no larger reason and then forgets about him for the rest of the work (a truly disposable character). Effectively, that is the literary equivalent to save or die: a random meaningless death that adds nothing to the larger narrative and serves only to be a "sucks to be you" to the Player.

Sorry, got to disagree here, simply because that negative connotation you give save-or-die effects is entirely yours. Basically, they are a tool, a mechanical way for the DM to represent those effects like the Avara Kedavra curse (or similar things, like a basilisk's gaze), and the fact that extremely powerful spellcasters (remember when a 5th level spell was a HIGH level spell in D&D?) can snuff out a life without much fuss. HOW they are used (or abused, as complained on by many posters here) is up to the DM, or the players who have the spell in their repertoire. It's completely valid for a DM to use save-or-die as a plot device, as something that signifies something special, etc. That's not a cop-out, that's a DM using a tool as he sees it fitting into his game.
That goes for most D&D rules, by the way...they are tools that can be used in the game to represent certain things or events. It is 3E that has started integrating and cross-depending rules so tightly that they seem to be required ALL for a good game.

So maybe 4E needs to make those effects more powerful (higher spell levels), rarer (only special monsters with save-or-die effects), and with more "DM handholding" (clarifying when those special monsters should be used, and what consequences a save-or-die effect can have on the game), but I doubt the game will really win something by taking them out of it completely.

And even if Sirius Black and Dumbledore were "only" NPCs/Mentors...it's still the closest method of replicating those effects. And really, if we HAD a Harry Potter RPG, should there be a clause to the Avada Kedavra, saying "Only to be used by NPCs against NPCs"? Because I can remember Harry and his friends dodging quite a few of those in OotP.