Players, DMs and Save or Die

[Doug McCrae]

The 3e medusa is an ambusher. Its whole schtick is to keep the fact that it is a medusa a secret until it's too late for its victims. After all, apart from its gaze it doesn't have much going for it. Its skill list includes bluff, disguise and move silently. Medusae are quite often found within human society, leading criminal gangs, so they would have to keep their medusahood secret from society in order to survive.

 

[Lanefan]

Now, save or be hurt I have no problem with. But, IME, save or die is disproportionately lethal. In my World's Largest Dungeon campaign, with a group of 6, I had 25 (ish) PC deaths (most of them permanent). Almost half were from save or die effects - and I'm counting being turned to stone in here too since the PC's had no way to retrieve those who failed their saves.

Half the fatalities were to SoD, but, far fewer than half the encounters were with SoD monsters. I would say that about 10% of the encounters are actually with SoD monsters or traps. Yet, that 10% (and that's not a certain number, just a rough guess) accounted for as many deaths as the other 90%.

Just for kicks, I ran the numbers from my Riveria campaign.

The most dangerous foes, strictly in terms of how many characters they killed, were Giants.
Yes, simple damage-dealing Giants.

Other major foe-types (Demons, Dragons, Drow...why do all the nasties start with "D"?) took down their share, but nowhere near as many as Giants even when put together.

Perhaps the second most dangerous thing overall that the characters faced was themselves. They had *awful* luck when faced with clones of themselves; add that in to occasional stupidity or bad luck (critical fumbles) and magic item meltdown and the result was sometimes messy.

That said, SoD claimed its share. One Medusa got 2 at once, thanks to the not-very-quiet party lining themselves up in perfect order of height before opening her door. One poor guy met a Beholder's death ray...needed a 3 to save, rolled a 2. The party was able to revive him in the field, so they retreated and did so before going back in the next day only to meet the same Beholder again. By sheer luck (i.e. random roll on my part) the death ray went for the same guy again...buffed up, this time he'd save on a 2. A 1, however, is a 1; and that's what he rolled...at which point the player realized this was just not meant to be, and started rolling up another.
(side note: has it ever happened in any of your games that the same opponent has killed the same character twice or more?)

All I know is that in every edition that I've played, SoD killed FAR more than it should considering the number of times its faced.

That makes sense. Most foes the party meets are not normally capable of killing a PC given competent play...but something with SoD is. Therefore, it only follows that SoD encounters will have a higher kill rate than normal encounters. That's no reason to get rid of SoD completely, however; but it does suggest not overusing it.

Keep in mind that many spells and effects can amount to SoD in the right situation. My favourite is a flee-in-blind-panic effect on a narrow twisty ridge path or near the top of a cliff. Dispel Magic on someone in flight or water-walking far from shore is another fine one. And the list goes on...

Should all of these disappear too?

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

As mentioned, "player choice" is not a defence of save or die abilities, it is only my way of using them based on the preferences of my current gaming group.

The point in this context is probably that the players actually have to get a chance to be able to choose to face the save-or-die threat, or not.

FireLance, Geron - thanks for the replies!

So your players always know every single creature they're going to face before going into an encounter? They never meet anything unknown or unexpected?

It's your game, of course, but I don't think that's how the vast majority of D&D games are played.

Agreed.

Right. So, the question is, do we change these core assumptions that were introduced in 3.5 or do we remove Save or Die because they don't mesh with the new core assumptions.

I think that WoTC have formed a view about the way D&D tends to be played, and are designing around it. Exploration is out - rapid-paced challenges are in.

Uhm...not to be snarky or anything...but 4E is all about making people change how they play D&D, and so far nobody chalked that up to a failure if the rule..hard to do since they aren't in print yet.

Alternatively, its about making the mechanics fit the way the game is typically played.

The thing is, for some reason the "basic assumption" that was built into pretty much every edition of D&D, namely that of gathering information about the locale you're going to invade along with the basic opposition seems to get lost frequently.

To make this sort of play fit with 4e, what would be needed is a system of "information gathering challenges" in which every player's PC is able to play a meaningful round on every turn. Maybe the social encounter mechanics will handle it. Even then, I doubt that it will become the norm for most play groups.

Or you could just not use instakill spells. Seems to save an awful lot of drudgery.

One man's drudgery...

This is the reason why I suspect it won't become the norm - a lot of groups don't find that sort of play very interesting. Of course, some do. I don't believe that 4e is being written for them.

There's also an interesting philosophical question surrounding the whole "your PCs chose to encounter this monster" thing. If my character chooses to fight an evil wizard because fighting this evil wizard is the only way to save the world, and I choose to send my character to fight an evil wizard because fighting this evil wizard is the only way to continue the game my DM has written for the evening without reducing it to shambles, to what extent have I really consented to facing the wizard's save-or-die spells?

That's just my point. The player-choice story about save-or-die assumes a certain set of metagame priorities which (I believe) are not those of the majority.

One funny thing about those "standard assumptions" is that they don't tend towards this whole "very high magic" setting that somehow is painted in this thread

<snip DMG demographic data>

That leaves us with all the BBEG clerics and wizards who have to be high enough level to do all that killing on the spot.

What this highlight, IMO, is an inconsistency in the DMG's demographic rules and the basic encounter design/reward mechanism of D&D. It's not surprising to me that most play groups go with the latter, and put the demographics to one side.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You obviously don't play in a "points of light" (to borrow 4e's term) style setting where monster DO live in hidden dungeons and tombs without people noticing, far, far from human civilization and where the local rumors and legends end 20 some years before the adventure starts (We don't go up to Bone Hill, haven't for years. Rumor says its haunted. No one's ever come back alive). We can't always just look up what monsters are rumored to live in Bone Hill. We might know the goblins come to raid from there, but that doesn't mean that anyone knows (or have any reason to know) that the goblinoids made a deal with a local medusa to act as a guardian of their lair for a (more than) fair share of the treasure (and not to stonegaze them).

The goblinoids know.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

What this highlight, IMO, is an inconsistency in the DMG's demographic rules and the basic encounter design/reward mechanism of D&D. It's not surprising to me that most play groups go with the latter, and put the demographics to one side.

Okay, care to elaborate on that one? I'm really curious what you mean with that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm wondering what is "well-designed" about that world.

The environment and the individuals inhabiting that environment interact? Things living in a given place leave evidence of their being there, merely by being there? If a monster eats, it has a middens? Tracks, feathers, territorial markings, scat, and bones of past kills don't mysteriously disappear so that there is no trace of an owlbear in the vicinity?

Eventually, won't things look very contrived with the DM leaving breadcrumbs all around. Every medusa lair isn't going to have statues all around it after all. Right?

No more contrived than the real world, in which every living thing leaves signs of its existence. Really, how many grizzly bears live in a vacuum? Mountain lions can creep down into cities without anyone knowing, until pets go missing and pawprints are noted (I used to live in California, and a few years back there was a mountain lion sighting east of Toronto by the zoo...and not an escapee!). Intelligent species leave an even wider ecological footprint.

What does that medusa do when it isn't waiting for adventurers to kill it? Certainly, an intelligent creature will want to hide its specific location, but it would be (IMHO) difficult for a medusa to survive anywhere without some petrified remains to indicate it was nearby. Or does the medusa haul the new statue 20 miles after every stoning?

A heap of smashed and broken statuary is far more likely, IMHO.

And you can be pretty darn certain that any creature at all nearby has some idea that something awful lurks in the West Wing, and can turn you to stone....or they wouldn't survive long enough to be "at all nearby".

Yeah, but, at least in my mind, there's a difference between a lucky shot or someone getting really unlucky with surprise/initiative rolls and a death attack. Take implosion. 1/round until you break their concentration. And, a CR 13 slaad can do this!

If you are implying that 3e gets unfun somewhere after 10th level (and YMMV as to where), then I agree with you. IMHO, Wahoo! 24/7 gets boring fast.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

And if those goblins don't know, outright lie, or won't go down without a fight? If the answer to a particular rule-problem is "change the way you play D&D" I think thats a failing of the rule, not the players or the DM...

Isn't changing the rule also changing the way you play D&D?

Just saying.....

 

[Raven Crowking]

Wow, RC, just... wow. :\

Sorta what I was thinking....

In a D&D game, I don't think that the DM should ever raise the stakes so high that she'll be undone if the players simply don't bite. What happens if they fail? Does the DM then need to ensure that the PCs succeed? Or is there an endless line of characters who are just as tough to take over if they fail?

If the DM is "forcing" you into encounters because otherwise the world will end, that is a problem, IMHO. Otherwise the world will be shaken up? A civilization will collapse? Loved ones will die? Fine. There is some choice involved there, and the campaign isn't over if the PCs say "No" or try to find some other way to safeguard their loved ones.

But even these sorts of choices can leave a sour taste in players' mouths, and should be used sparingly. IMHO, of course.

A DM shouldn't be forcing players to take the bait. On the other side of the coin, if there is a consequence for action or inaction, you should never promise something you have no intention of delivering.

Again, IMHO.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

The 3e medusa is an ambusher. Its whole schtick is to keep the fact that it is a medusa a secret until it's too late for its victims. After all, apart from its gaze it doesn't have much going for it. Its skill list includes bluff, disguise and move silently. Medusae are quite often found within human society, leading criminal gangs, so they would have to keep their medusahood secret from society in order to survive.

That seems to be a lot of world-specific uses for the monster. I can easily think of uses for a medusa that don't require the victim to not know of its existence. For example, the original Medusa in Greek mythology. What about a medusa who leads a cult and wants you to know what will happen if you disobey her?

Sure, the actual encounter may be an ambush, but leading up to that encounter? You are unwary and meet the gaze of anything you meet when you know there is a medusa about? Or does this medusa simply leave no footprints upon the world around it? For example, the criminal gang being led by the medusa has no idea whatsoever that the "Veiled Lady" not only gave Johnny the Snitch cement overshoes...but cement legs, a cement torso, etc.?

Unlikely, I think.

YMMV.


RC

 

[Remathilis]

That seems to be a lot of world-specific uses for the monster. I can easily think of uses for a medusa that don't require the victim to not know of its existence. For example, the original Medusa in Greek mythology. What about a medusa who leads a cult and wants you to know what will happen if you disobey her?

Sure, the actual encounter may be an ambush, but leading up to that encounter? You are unwary and meet the gaze of anything you meet when you know there is a medusa about? Or does this medusa simply leave no footprints upon the world around it? For example, the criminal gang being led by the medusa has no idea whatsoever that the "Veiled Lady" not only gave Johnny the Snitch cement overshoes...but cement legs, a cement torso, etc.?

Unlikely, I think.

YMMV.

RC

By that logic, I wonder how doppleganger's manage to survive...