Players, DMs and Save or Die

[Raven Crowking]

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

Care for some fire, straw man?

Dopplegangers are quite a bit more suited for the "stealthy infiltration" role than medusae.....but, yes, dopplegangers still leave footprints in the world around them. They are just harder to see, because they so often look like someone else's footprints. Still, the more likely it is that a doppleganger is going to try to eat you, the more likely it is that they have eaten other people before you, and the more likely it is that Little Jimmy and Sue Anne have gone missing recently.

RC

EDIT: BTW, what you are quoting there is not logic. For an example of something logical, look at our examination of whether or not it is the final odds that matter, or how many dice you roll to gain those odds.

Saying that there is a fundamental difference between two 5% chances to die, because one is rolled on 1d20 (roll a 1 and die) and the other is rolled on 2d10 (a result of 0 on the first die, then the second is rolled, with you dying on a result of 1-5) is something that can be examined by logic.

That every creature that exists, due to the mere fact of its existence, leaves signs of its existence on its environment is a premise upon which logical conclusions can be built, but is not itself logical. It is rather an observation, which you may agree or disagree with with little fear that logic can be invoked to prove you wrong.

RC

 

[lukelightning]

Regarding medusae (medusas?), I houserule that you can create a potion out of a medusa's blood that acts as an antidote to the petrification. It takes some alchemy, and only works on victims of that particular medusa's gaze. And it isn't exactly common knowledge (to reward folks with the right knowledge skills).

You could do similar things with other "save or die" effects. Perhaps the bodak's gaze doesn't kill you but puts you in a deathlike state that can only be reversed by exposure to the noonday sun.

 

[Celebrim]

You could do similar things with other "save or die" effects. Perhaps the bodak's gaze doesn't kill you but puts you in a deathlike state that can only be reversed by exposure to the noonday sun.

The problem with any 'save or helpless' effect is that it approaches 'save or die' in a very large number of cases. Workarounds like this don't address the root problem. (For that matter, neither does save or slow death IMO.)

As I've said before, gnomes have been dying looking for a fire opal since 1e in a way that is from the player's perspective 'save or die' even though ghouls don't actually have 'death touch', and they are still dying. Very often, 'save or be helpless' means a coup de grace at the oppurtunity, and from the perspective of a player whose character is the victim of that there often no difference between that and 'save or die' except the flavor.

And 'save or be helpless' is generally just as good for the PC's as 'save or die'. That's why the 'sleep' spell was historically so good.

 

[pemerton]

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

Well, you have pointed out that the DMG demographic rules suggest that high-level spellcasters are few and far between.

But the encounter design rules in the DMG assume that there are as many high-level opponents in the world, including high-level spellcasters, as are required to build fun and playable encounters for a high-level party. (Look at Greyhawk Ruins, for example, which is chock-full of high level casters at a rate that I'm pretty sure outstrips the DMG demographics).

One traditional solution is to send high-level adventurers to other planes, where demographic considerations don't apply in the same way.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Saying that there is a fundamental difference between two 5% chances to die, because one is rolled on 1d20 (roll a 1 and die) and the other is rolled on 2d10 (a result of 0 on the first die, then the second is rolled, with you dying on a result of 1-5) is something that can be examined by logic.
RC

This is not the exact thing i wanted to quote, but it is still on the same topic.

There is a difference between a 5 % chance from a single roll or a 5 % chance from multiple rolls.
The 5 % death chance is only arrived in a regular encounter due to several specific decisions the players and the DM do. An encounter that lasts 4 rounds with a 5 % chance of character death can arrive at this chance in very different ways. To get to the (possible) death, the PCs have to take certain actions. There are enough combinations of actions to reach the 5 % chance, but there are multiple points where you can diverge from the path to death (and multiple ones that lead back to it), and you don't neccessarily know which points/actions do this (but you might have some good ideas which ones are more likely)
In the round before the final chance of Death manifests for the Fighter (since he wil take so much damage this round that in the next round, a lucky hit will probably kill him in the next), he could choose to withdraw, or the Cleric might intervene and heal him enough, or he uses a maneuver that takes the enemy out - at least for one round. With Save or Die, the only equivalent to this would be to decide to not engage in the encounter at all, or hope you got the right information/guess and cast Death Ward before you enter the encounter.

Here is how I see things (and I hope I am not offending, condensensing or anything else bad, because I really don't want to be)
I think the differences you and I have on this matter and others (like per encounter resource management vs. per day resource management) are very fundamental, and I do not really see a chance to bridge the gap. We might get an understanding of each other opinions, but we will probably never come to like each other positions and play the game in similar ways.

For me, it is important how an encounter unfolds. It matters to me how I choose to spend my resources within these encounters, which decisions I make to avoid a characters chance of death.
For you, these seem to be of lower importance. The decisions important seem to be those that affect the adventure day. It is not important to you when within an encounter a resource is spent. it is only important in which ones it is spent at all, and how this will effect the next one. Decisions to avoid death are primarily made when deciding about which encounter to take and which not, not how you react within an encounter.

Our thinking operates on different scales, so to speak.
I don't really like to thing on the "bigger" scale in this context, because most of the play time (in my experience) is spent on the lower scale.
(That doesn't mean that I don't care much about adventures and campaigns - these are orthogonal to the scales we discuss, since they are less related to actual rules and more about storyteling)

4th Edition seems to be aimed at people who think like me. I am not sure if it is just Zeitgeist, and 5th Edition (or later) will return to Save & Die and Daily resources.
I tend to believe (in an ego-centric way) that it is a natural progression, at least it seems to be informed on the design goals of the 3rd edition, which aimed at maintaining character balance over all levels and classes. It seems a very important concept these days, but I don't know if this has to be that important (for me, it is.) or might be subject to change.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, you have pointed out that the DMG demographic rules suggest that high-level spellcasters are few and far between.

But the encounter design rules in the DMG assume that there are as many high-level opponents in the world, including high-level spellcasters, as are required to build fun and playable encounters for a high-level party. (Look at Greyhawk Ruins, for example, which is chock-full of high level casters at a rate that I'm pretty sure outstrips the DMG demographics).

One traditional solution is to send high-level adventurers to other planes, where demographic considerations don't apply in the same way.

An interesting question might be: Do player characters also count into this demographic? Or do they have to settle in?
Assuming they don't count: How many other wandering adventurers are there that don't count into the demographic? How many of them might be evil?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Well, you have pointed out that the DMG demographic rules suggest that high-level spellcasters are few and far between.

But the encounter design rules in the DMG assume that there are as many high-level opponents in the world, including high-level spellcasters, as are required to build fun and playable encounters for a high-level party. (Look at Greyhawk Ruins, for example, which is chock-full of high level casters at a rate that I'm pretty sure outstrips the DMG demographics).

One traditional solution is to send high-level adventurers to other planes, where demographic considerations don't apply in the same way.

Okay, thanks for the explanation. So basically it's a question of what assumptions the campaign setting is built upon. I've got to say, "points of light" gives me the hope that the DMG demographics section might have gotten a little more notice this time.

 

[Remathilis]

This is not the exact thing i wanted to quote, but it is still on the same topic.

There is a difference between a 5 % chance from a single roll or a 5 % chance from multiple rolls.

[snip]

Thank you for more eloquently stating my position than I have in 4 days.

 

[FireLance]

By the way, check out the beholder animated feature on the WotC website.

It looks like the beholder's petrification, at least, will be a gradual turn to stone ability.

 

[Psion]

Regarding medusae (medusas?), I houserule that you can create a potion out of a medusa's blood that acts as an antidote to the petrification. It takes some alchemy, and only works on victims of that particular medusa's gaze. And it isn't exactly common knowledge (to reward folks with the right knowledge skills).

You could do similar things with other "save or die" effects. Perhaps the bodak's gaze doesn't kill you but puts you in a deathlike state that can only be reversed by exposure to the noonday sun.

That's really cool.

You could spin this several different ways. If could merely offset the "death penalty" level, revivify within a certain period, etc.