Players, DMs and Save or Die

[MoogleEmpMog]

We had a system of "coolness survival points" that recharged everyday, and each could be spent to gain 1 reroll on ANY roll you make (or force an attacker to reroll an attack). Not too many, around 1 or 2 a day. (This is what I was getting at with my earlier post. I'm sorry if I sounded snarky and dismissive, the only game I play is D&D and I thought the Eberron points the same as the UA. No idea how Spycraft, Saga, or Conan work.) This way one could still have the kills, but you would have less of a chance of dying, and BBEGs could also have these? Sure, it's liable to spamming, but SoDs would probably be 1/day spells, and I suspect casters will have very few of those.

If you change 'reroll' to 'automatic success,' then I don't have a problem with this. Star Wars Saga Edition basically does this - you can spend a Force Point to convert 'dead' to 'knocked out.'

What it does is put the situation I described earlier (characters will or can die when it's a situation their players consider dramatically important enough to sacrifice them, or at least risk death) in mechanical terms. If you absolutely MUST use your last action/force point to get something done, then by golly, it's something important enough for you to risk your character's life.

If it's just a reroll, though, it remains far too random for my tastes.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

So, the literary examples are all totally invalid because all of the literary examples are totally controlled by the author whereas DND is not totally controlled by the DM. The players and the dice do have a say in DND results, not just the DM.

The players certainly do. Whether the dice do (or SHOULD) is what's under discussion here.

Certainly there are RPGs where NEITHER the GM nor the dice have the power to outright kill a PC without the player's consent. Dogs In The Vineyard is an iconic example - if the players don't escalate the conflict to lethal levels, it CANNOT become lethal. More subtly, Star Wars Saga Edition achieves something similar via its implementation of action points (well, Force Points due to the setting).

In the current version of D&D, the dice have more power than either the players or the GM. In past versions, the GM had more power than either the dice or the players. In Dogs, the players have more power than either the GM or the dice (arguably). Burning Empires attempts to balance the three powers.

Where power should be invested - in the rules, in randomness, in the game master, in the other players - is, of course, one of the critical questions when designing an RPG, and there really isn't a 'right answer.' Just the answer that's most right for the most players (among those who would or might be interested in your game in the first place). Where D&D is concerned, that's a fairly large and diverse group of people, so I don't envy the designers the need to grapple with such questions.

 

[KarinsDad]

In the current version of D&D, the dice have more power than either the players or the GM. In past versions, the GM had more power than either the dice or the players.

Could you quote rules for this? Having played all of the editions of DND, I do not remember rules that the GM could throw dice rolls or player decisions out the window.

Nor do I see that 3E/3.5 is more dice controlled than previous versions. For example, initiative was re-rolled every round in previous editions. Lots more dice rolls there.

Where D&D is concerned, that's a fairly large and diverse group of people, so I don't envy the designers the need to grapple with such questions.

The designers really do not have a say unless they get rid of DMs, dice, or players. If they put save or die spells in, the DM can always yank them out. If they leave save or die spells out, the DM can always put them back in.

 

[Ahglock]

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.

So what meaning is found in the game when you are full attack splatted in one round? Is it the method of death, the death, the lack of meaning in death that makes it bad?


I think there needs to be some change since in 3/3.5 e save or dies were just the best way to attack in the game. You had a high chance of success at ending the fight in one action, that is fairly insane.

I don't like the idea of just removing them though, spells like polymorph, sleep,flesh to stone, or less cool to me but even true save or dies like finger of death are great spells that would be a crime to remove. If you remove all save or dies you minds as well just say I hit them with a magic attack for X damage every round. Because the I used fire this round instead of lighting wow factor will wear off quickly.

Personally I'd like them to switch all save or dies to something like the power word kill system but with a save/attack roll vs the correct defense on top of the must have less than X HP system. That way if balanced right save or dies don't end the fight in the first action, they end the fight 1 round earlier than they would of otherwise if successful and 1 round later if they fail.

So how many people who are voting against save or dies
Are against all PC death?
Are against save or Dies no matter how they are changed?
Are just against save or dies because of how they are currently implemented?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

You know guys, discussions like this will end up in a "it's great" vs. "it's crap" line of arguments sooner or later anyway, this one is a good example of it. People ask for examples from other media where a main character is simply dropped by something like a death effect, because to them D&D shouldn't invalidate the "plot sanctity" of their character. They are provided, and suddenly it's either "those are only NPCs" or "those are not save-or-die but author fiat" (which makes me wonder how that reflects on all the DM fiat discussions), and only one of two examples is actually addressed (I wonder what you'd come up with for the second...Arren not being a main character, or the spell not being save-or-die?). You try to discuss how that death effect killing that "NPC" could impact the main characters then if it had been a scene in an RPG, and you get told how much it must have sucked for the player if that NPC had been a PC ...or that the current save-or-die mechanic would have killed the main characters off randomly and without meaning when in other places you get told that they are useless and unrealistic because even John Commoner has at least a 5% chance of surviving them no matter how bad his Con score. People prefer to throw "but it's RANDOM and ARBITRARY and totally ANTI-CLIMATIC" in the fray when the point brought up is that save-or-die effects are a DM tool to be used to make certain encounters and NPCs have a very special significance (one poster arguing that, when the PCs are high enough level they should be encountering hundreds of 9th level clerics still sticks out in my mind), which just makes me wonder what kind of game trauma they must have experienced to get to the conclusion that, as soon as save-or-die effects are in the rules, DMs start killing PCs left and right. Some even insist it SHOULD be that way per RAW, which is kinda weird, looking at the population percentages in the DMG for the "default" setting, where a cleric of high enough level might turn up in a Large Town or higher...and that would be one of 9th level, not hundreds.

So for the time being, I'll simply assume this discussion having reached another impasse, and bow out for a bit. Maybe it'll be worth coming back to it in a few days or so. Seeing as 4E is finished in its basic structure anyway, it's nothing I can change by trying to keep this side of the fence up anyway. And whatever happens in my games isn't depending on the discussions here either.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

But does he really need the ability to snuff out the life of PCs and BBEG, or is isn't it sufficient being able to kill a random NPC or PC henchmen with a single spell?

There are even a few spells in D&D that already do this - The Cloud spell (forgot the name) that kills anyone with 9HD or less.
I think they're okay as a "Die" spell (they aren't event Save or Die, IIRC), because, well, they are there to show off the NPCs or PCs power over "moral humans". But against the real powerful ones, it's just not enough.
Such a spell would meaningless for any challenging encounter, but it gives a sense of absolute power for a character.

But if you can regularly use such spells on PCs and BBEG, you too often risk damaging the flow of storytelling or player participation.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

So how many people who are voting against save or dies
Are against all PC death?

No.

All GAMEPLAY death (for PCs or major NPCs), yes.

I would like to see what is currently 'death' in D&D become 'removed from the encounter' (unless appropriately treated, allowing the character to return to participation), and ideally a 'last stand' mechanic that encouraged players to turn on their metaphorical 'death flags' in the most dramatic encounters.

Are against save or Dies no matter how they are changed?

No.

They're currently too effective at mid-high levels, but conceptually I have no problem with a 'save or be removed from the encounter' effect.

Are just against save or dies because of how they are currently implemented?

No.

Not JUST because of how they are currently implemented, but partly so. Right now, they are both a) poorly balanced with other effects, probabilistically speaking and b) tied to a system that permanently removes protagonists from the story. I'm against both of those elements.

 

[Remathilis]

So what meaning is found in the game when you are full attack splatted in one round? Is it the method of death, the death, the lack of meaning in death that makes it bad?

A full attack action can be very lethal, but there are A LOT more chance of survival. You have to hit on a majority of those attacks (and the probability of each of those hits are dependent on the attackers to hit roll, defenders AC, and other situational factors). It also depends on the weapon/damage rolls vs. the defender's hp. You need a full round action to use this (which unless you're some insane archer build, requires at least a round to get into attack position.) Lastly, if your so inclined, a DM can fudge the damage output much more subtlety to fit his scenario (dropping a PC into negatives and moving on, leaving him with a few hp left, etc). So it very possible if not likely you can survive a full attack by virtue of a good AC, good hp, poor attack bonuses, poor damage rolls/ability, movement, negative hp/dropping, or DM fiat).

Compare that to save or die. The defender gets ONE die roll, vs a caster's set DC. Barring spell resistance (a rarity for PCs) that is the only defense the PC gets vs death. His hp doesn't matter, since the damage on that single attack instantly does character hp +10 damage. The caster can do it from range as a standard action. He can do it as long as he has spell slots to dedicate to the effect. Lastly, the DM cannot fiat the roll if he chooses to, since the spells effect (death) is set. So the PC CAN ONLY survive by rolling high and hoping his save bonus is better than his opponents save DC).

For a better comparison, answer this question. Would you allow a feat that allowed a fighter (around 9th level) to once per day make an attack roll that, if it hits, does opponents hp +10 damage. If not, why not?

 

[Ahglock]

No.

All GAMEPLAY death (for PCs or major NPCs), yes.

I would like to see what is currently 'death' in D&D become 'removed from the encounter' (unless appropriately treated, allowing the character to return to participation), and ideally a 'last stand' mechanic that encouraged players to turn on their metaphorical 'death flags' in the most dramatic encounters.

I understand the idea I think I'd hate to play in it. Last night was my first time of running a full Saga adventure. I had retrofitted the sunless citadel into star wars, and the end boss was a 4th level dark side force user.(fighter class) He crit and brought one of the party members to what would of been -10 in one shot. In saga it was brought to 0 and dropped on the condition track by exceeding his fort save in damage. This meant death but the player spent a force point and hung on. I'm not sure I would like this in a D&D game but for star wars it seemed to fit the space opera high heroics setting.

I guess it would be cool to add in multiple death rules so you can tie a death rule to the genre of fantasy you are running. -10 HP dead, hero points to hang on, no game paly death except when players turn on death flags, and others. And if one wasn't labeled as the core system with others as options I think that would even be better.

Overall though I think I like the idea that in every encounter I can be killed. When I think I won't be killed I lose any emotional investment in the game and I'm just rolling dice.

No.

They're currently too effective at mid-high levels, but conceptually I have no problem with a 'save or be removed from the encounter' effect.



No.

Not JUST because of how they are currently implemented, but partly so. Right now, they are both a) poorly balanced with other effects, probabilistically speaking and b) tied to a system that permanently removes protagonists from the story. I'm against both of those elements.

So the true save or dies you are not a fan of this since they do remove you from the campaign, but something like stone to flesh, sleep, polymorph, knocked to on deaths door is fine if balanced correctly?
I think I understand what you want but again I don't think I would like it. But I'd love it if it was one of the death options in the game so multiple styles of heroic fantasy were represented.

 

[Ahglock]

A full attack action can be very lethal, but there are A LOT more chance of survival. You have to hit on a majority of those attacks (and the probability of each of those hits are dependent on the attackers to hit roll, defenders AC, and other situational factors). It also depends on the weapon/damage rolls vs. the defender's hp. You need a full round action to use this (which unless you're some insane archer build, requires at least a round to get into attack position.) Lastly, if your so inclined, a DM can fudge the damage output much more subtlety to fit his scenario (dropping a PC into negatives and moving on, leaving him with a few hp left, etc). So it very possible if not likely you can survive a full attack by virtue of a good AC, good hp, poor attack bonuses, poor damage rolls/ability, movement, negative hp/dropping, or DM fiat).

Compare that to save or die. The defender gets ONE die roll, vs a caster's set DC. Barring spell resistance (a rarity for PCs) that is the only defense the PC gets vs death. His hp doesn't matter, since the damage on that single attack instantly does character hp +10 damage. The caster can do it from range as a standard action. He can do it as long as he has spell slots to dedicate to the effect. Lastly, the DM cannot fiat the roll if he chooses to, since the spells effect (death) is set. So the PC CAN ONLY survive by rolling high and hoping his save bonus is better than his opponents save DC).

For a better comparison, answer this question. Would you allow a feat that allowed a fighter (around 9th level) to once per day make an attack roll that, if it hits, does opponents hp +10 damage. If not, why not?

There are plenty of creatures of appropriate CRs that can either easily be smote in one round of full attacks by the fighter or kill a party member in one round of full attacks, especially if its low hid die class like rogue or sorcerer. DM fudging can come in a lot of ways, damage may just be easier. I can say the Medusa is trying to lock its gaze with yours, oh it failed, and only when I think the fight has gone on long enough so maybe HP attrition would of killed him have the Medusa's gaze lock on. Still I'm not even trying to claim save or dies are balanced right so the one roll argument is meaningless to me. Also I don't fudge at all so either way whether its a failed death save or my fire giant just goes to town on the rogue it can easily equal one dead PC.

I'm not sure that is a better comparison, but in answer probably not. Not because of the effect but because in 3e it breaks the system of how classes work. Spell casters have depleting resources and once a day effects, fighter types do consistent damage and can go all day.

In 4e where that seems to be changing, assuming it was balanced no I wouldn't have a problem with that. In fact I think it would be really cool. Some Last boy Scout action, "Can I have a light, and if you punch me again I'll kill you." gets punched. He steps up one shot punch and he kills him.