Players, DMs and Save or Die

[Grog]

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

Please quote the section of the rules that says that "save-or-die effects are a DM tool to be used to make certain encounters and NPCs have a very special significance." I'd be very interested to see that rule section, because as things stand now, by the 3.5 RAW, every single spellcaster in the world above a certain level has access to save-or-die effects, along with several different monsters. There's no "special significance" to them at all.

 

[shilsen]

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.

That's a good example of why this is essentially a playstyle issue and that people have completely opposite responses to the same thing. For some people (myself included), knowing that the PC won't be killed actually helps emotional investment, since they're able to focus more on the character and its development and roleplaying it without having to worry about all of that going to naught because the character suddenly dies.

 

[Agamon]

Interestingly, I expected more "DM only" to be pro SoD, while more "Player Only" to be anti-SoD. It seems the anti-sentiment is strong among both camps however.

As a 'usually DM', I hate Save or Die. The 'bam, yer dead' aspect is disruptive and anti-climactic. And it leads to die-raise-die-raise silliness.

I find it works against PCs more than NPCs, too. Baddies tend to have pretty good saves compared to PCs. I've had 5 PCs die to save or die events so far in my AoW game, and though they try, the PCs have only killed one baddie with anything close to a save or die effect (PC hit a mind flayer with a drow poisoned shuriken, I rolled a one to save. It didn't kill it, but the PCs did after it fell unconscious).

I don't really like play over 10th level, and this would be one of the main culprits.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

So we're moving from save-or-die to die-because-I-say-so?

You can't really fudge save-or-die, because if you do you're either removing them entirely, or you're just deciding at some point that the player dies. Either way, you've removed save-or-die from the game. In the latter case, you're just deciding arbitrarily to kill a PC without even the recourse to a saving throw, which is pretty much the opposite of what most people consider to be fair use of DM fiat.

 

[KarinsDad]

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?

Actually, let's make that more mechanically realistic.

Kill Feat: -6 to hit. If the attack roll hits, it does +1000 hit points of damage. Once per day.

That is more or less what save or die typically is (the -6 is to get the chance to succeed more or less in the same ballpark at mid to high level). One roll against death.

I do not see the appeal to give spell casters these huge cannons. And, they are not limited to once per day. They could do it several times per day.

Why should spell casters get save or die spells and Fighters not get avoid or die abilities?

 

[KarinsDad]

Please quote the section of the rules that says that "save-or-die effects are a DM tool to be used to make certain encounters and NPCs have a very special significance." I'd be very interested to see that rule section, because as things stand now, by the 3.5 RAW, every single spellcaster in the world above a certain level has access to save-or-die effects, along with several different monsters. There's no "special significance" to them at all.

Yes. Level one Wizard or Sorcerer can have a Sleep spell which for all intents and purposes, is nearly save or die. The level is pretty darn low.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Interesting concept.

Instead of Save or Die, it becomes Save or Coup De Grace. Weaken him first and then throw in the killing blow. But, it does become a bit formulaic and only delays Save or Die to latter rounds. Not quite a good enough solution.


Another possibility is gradual death / turn to stone effects. It takes 3-5 rounds to turn the PC to stone and each round he gets stiffer and stiffer (similar to Heat Metal with varying effects each round). But, at least the PCs (and NPCs) have time to react and possibly counter the effect. This is also good as high level area effect type spells because although it doesn't take the opponents out right away, it does force them to use up resources and waste actions (dispels and such).

This type of multi-round gradual concept could remove save or die as a specific game mechanic, but allow the same cinematic effects. Somewhat satisfying both camps (except for the real extremists). The PC could still die or get turned to stone or get sucked into another dimension, but it's not bang you're dead.

Thanks for helping me think outside the box.

 

[Remathilis]

Why should spell casters get save or die spells and Fighters not get avoid or die abilities?

Agreeing again, but I'll just toss this out. Its possible that in 4e, fighters and rogues COULD have something like this, thanks to the at will/per encounter/per day paragrim. I would certainly hope it happens at epic levels though.

I like your revision to my hypothetical feat though, so lets finish it off...

Killing Blow [General]
Requirements: Weapon Focus (any), Bab +9
Benefit: Once per day, you can make a special killing attack as a standard action. You must declare you are using this feat before you make your attack roll. You make one attack at your highest attack bonus, but with an additional -6 penalty. If you hit, you deal your normal damage plus 1,000 points of additional damage. If you miss, your attempt is wasted for the day. This feat has no effect on creatures immune to critical hits.
Special: a fighter can take Killing Blow as a bonus feat.

 

[pemerton]

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.

This is something I don't quite get. Most novels I read and movies I watch - not to mention most of my own real life and that of my friends - don't have the threat of death as the trigger for emotional investment.

Even when I think of fanastic genres, like superhero comics or fantasy adventures, it's typically not the threat of death but the threat of some other sort of loss or failure that is the basis for emotional investment.

Only in war stories of a certain sort (in which sheer survival, rather than achieving some goal, is the main focus) does the threat of death become the emotional crux. Does D&D have to be like this?

 

[pemerton]

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.

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.

Right. But earlier editions of D&D had far fewer and less detailed action resolution mechanics, and also less intricate character build mechanics to interact with them. As a result, the GM had a lot of power to determine whether or not PC's actions succeeded or failed, independently of any information on the character sheet, and independently of any dice rolls. White Plume Mountain and Tomb of Horrors are both modules which are written with an understanding that they will be played and GMed in such a fashion.