Geron Raveneye
Explorer
lukelightning said:
Damn nice idea! Worth a lot of pondering over.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Players, DMs and Save or Die
- Thread starter Remathilis
- Start date
Damn nice idea! Worth a lot of pondering over.
Mustrum_Ridcully said:
You may be onto something here.
I think, to me, the game is more fun when I have to operate on multiple scales. I don't want to be myopic about any one scale. (Well, sometimes I do, & then I usually play Toon or a PS2 game or something else.)
While I've just been trying to explain why "save or die" isn't a problem for me, I think this is the closest to coming up for a reason for why I actually like it.
FireLance said:
Depending on how it works that is still save or die. Save or die 3 rounds later is still dead. It might work out, depends on the how. But it sounds like things like petrification are still in, just implemented differently.
I wouldn't mind it being a flat out X rounds later you are toast, better find a counter soon system. As long a counters are relatively easily available it should satisfy the no save or die crowds to some degree at least.
Ahglock said:
I mentioned this concept much earlier in the thread.
A gradual effect would be fine as long as:
a) there are multiple solutions to the problem.
b) one of those solutions is save every round. If all of the saves fail, the PC dies. The first save that succeeds stops the progression any further. So in SWSE terms, a persistent lowering on the conditions table results each round a save is not made.
Unfortunately, if there are no saves in 4E, how does one save every round? I do not think it is probable that any such solution will therefore exist in 4E (unless they implement a variable Will, Reflex, and Fort Defense special rule that a player can roll D20 + modifiers and use it for Defense instead of using 10 + modifiers).
But, I do think that both a and b need to exist to satisfy some portion of the anti- save or die crowd. Having just a means that some scenarios might exist where none of the solutions can be found (regardless of whether the DM put them there or not, the players might still not find them). Having just b means that it is still save or die, the odds are just different.
I do not believe that PCs have to be saved from death in all cases. I do believe, however, that PCs have to have roleplaying / tactical possible solutions in all cases. The dice should not strictly rule die or don't die with no possibility of player reaction.
Remathilis
Legend
Ahglock said:
Even then, paralysis, petrifaction, and other status ailments like that don't stretch my credibility like "dangit, a bodak. Lets get Gene Eric the Cleric to bring Bob back from the afterlife"
Raven Crowking
First Post
Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Sure. Perhaps I should have gone back and quoted myself in entire earlier.
If the chance that Monster X surprises you, hits you, and kills you in that hit works out to 5%, then it is no different than any other effect that has a 5% chance of killing you before you can react.
The only important things are:
(1) What is the chance of dying? and
(2) Do I get to act in order to mitigate that chance?
(2) Do I get to act in order to mitigate that chance?
You would need to remove a lot more than SoD effects to remove the chance of dying before you can react. Perhaps, for example, monsters should never do enough damage to kill a PC in one blow? Or, perhaps such damage dealing monsters should never surprise...or win initiative?
You may also say, for example, "More rolls means more chances to fudge a roll", and this is true. However, the game shouldn't be designed (IMHO) on the basis of fudging rolls you don't like (as player or DM). Action Points, which will apparently be core in 4e, offer a better solution to this problem IMHO. As a player, I'd rather die from a SoD effect than discover the DM fudging to save me, though. I very much doubt that I am alone in this.
Moreover, if you are going to fudge the roll, why not simply fudge the first roll? Does an outcome based on DM Fiat need multiple chances to invoke that Fiat? If so, why?
RC
FireLance
Legend
I would add one more factor:Raven Crowking said:
(3) Would the monster be considered an appropriate challenge for the PCs?
While I haven't done the math, I suspect that most monsters who are supposed to be appropriate challenges for the PCs would have a less than 5% chance of killing one before he had a chance to react.
I agree with Raven Crowking, in part.
What matters is whether the monster can kill you in one (series of) roll(s) during which you can't act. A monster who one roll kills you and a monster that uses ten rolls to do it are equally obnoxious if you're stuck sitting there waiting to die while it happens. In fact, the monster who takes longer to do it is even more annoying in a way, because you have to sit there and wait.
But I'd add some caveats.
First, the monster's CR matters from a game design perspective. If the reason my character is at risk of being killed in the first attack of an ambush is because the monster in question is CR 9 and I'm a 4th level character, then my character's death is at least not the fault of poor game design. That's a DM/Player issue, and there's nothing that WOTC can do about it.
Second, how often the monster can one-hit-kill me is important. A monster who can save-or-die me every round is worse design than a monster who can one-hit-kill me, but only on the first round of combat if it gets a surprise round attack and then wins initiative. Neither were particularly good things, mind you, they're both doing the same obnoxious thing, but one is doing it more often. Which is bad.
Third, a save-or-die affects only one statistic of my character. I've either got a good enough save of the appropriate type, or not. Against the "first round ambush killer" monster, I can "defend" in multiple fashions by focusing on several different stats. I might have a high spot, and notice the ambush, allowing myself to act during the surprise round. I might have a high initiative, allowing me to go before the monster goes a second time. I might have a high flat footed armor class, or high hit points. Each one of these is something in my control (albeit long term control) that I can use to prospectively defend against this sort of monster. Which is nicer. But this only really matters in context of my final point, which is
The chance that a monster will attack you from ambush and kill you before you have time to react is almost NEVER going to be as high as the chance that you will die to a save-or-die effect. A save-or-die is going to affect you about 40 to 50% of the time, barring really great saves only available to certain classes (will save on a cleric, etc). If a monster has to beat my Spot check in an opposed roll, hit my flat footed AC, roll sufficiently high damage, then beat my initiative, then beat my flat footed AC again, and then roll sufficiently high damage a second time, it is REALLY unlikely that the overall chance that the monster will win all of those rolls is going to be anywhere close to 50%.
So this is all kind of academic anyways. Its nice to compare theoretical 5% save-or-dies to theoretical 5% one-attack-sequence-kills, but save-or-dies are almost always much higher odds of "die" than 5%.
What matters is whether the monster can kill you in one (series of) roll(s) during which you can't act. A monster who one roll kills you and a monster that uses ten rolls to do it are equally obnoxious if you're stuck sitting there waiting to die while it happens. In fact, the monster who takes longer to do it is even more annoying in a way, because you have to sit there and wait.
But I'd add some caveats.
First, the monster's CR matters from a game design perspective. If the reason my character is at risk of being killed in the first attack of an ambush is because the monster in question is CR 9 and I'm a 4th level character, then my character's death is at least not the fault of poor game design. That's a DM/Player issue, and there's nothing that WOTC can do about it.
Second, how often the monster can one-hit-kill me is important. A monster who can save-or-die me every round is worse design than a monster who can one-hit-kill me, but only on the first round of combat if it gets a surprise round attack and then wins initiative. Neither were particularly good things, mind you, they're both doing the same obnoxious thing, but one is doing it more often. Which is bad.
Third, a save-or-die affects only one statistic of my character. I've either got a good enough save of the appropriate type, or not. Against the "first round ambush killer" monster, I can "defend" in multiple fashions by focusing on several different stats. I might have a high spot, and notice the ambush, allowing myself to act during the surprise round. I might have a high initiative, allowing me to go before the monster goes a second time. I might have a high flat footed armor class, or high hit points. Each one of these is something in my control (albeit long term control) that I can use to prospectively defend against this sort of monster. Which is nicer. But this only really matters in context of my final point, which is
The chance that a monster will attack you from ambush and kill you before you have time to react is almost NEVER going to be as high as the chance that you will die to a save-or-die effect. A save-or-die is going to affect you about 40 to 50% of the time, barring really great saves only available to certain classes (will save on a cleric, etc). If a monster has to beat my Spot check in an opposed roll, hit my flat footed AC, roll sufficiently high damage, then beat my initiative, then beat my flat footed AC again, and then roll sufficiently high damage a second time, it is REALLY unlikely that the overall chance that the monster will win all of those rolls is going to be anywhere close to 50%.
So this is all kind of academic anyways. Its nice to compare theoretical 5% save-or-dies to theoretical 5% one-attack-sequence-kills, but save-or-dies are almost always much higher odds of "die" than 5%.
Remathilis
Legend
How many monsters can kill a PC in one blow (excluding crits?) on the opening round?
A brief comparison
Because I like 8th level and our friend the bodak, we'll use them both. Now to find a group of 8th level PCs and an 8th level melee monster...
Ah, Stone Giant (CR 8)
So a barbarian8, a paladin8, a cleric8, a rogue8, and a sorcerer8 (all the major HD represented) encounter these two creatures. Lets assume they have little proper foreknowledge of the challenge, to avoid the chess analogy. Just raw stats vs. monsters. Neither monster is advanced in any way, and the PCs are using the human DMG averages to save me a lot of time.
The barbarian has 73 hp, 19 AC, and +8 Fort Save. Since this is the surprise round, he can't rage. Against the bodak (fort DC 15, he must roll a 7 or higher to survive. Thats a 35% failure rate). The Stone Giant makes his one attack (surprise round, standard action) with a +12 to hit (vs AC 19, only a 7 to hit, or 35% chance of missing) but does 2d8+12 damage (14-28 damage. Vs. that 73 hp, he's not dropping that round.) Even on a crit (28-56 damage) he's not dying in one blow.
The paladin has 56 hp, 21 AC, and a +10 Fort Save (yay divine grace!) The bodak's gaze is avoided on a 5 or higher (25% mortality rate). The Giant can hit him on a 9 or better (45% miss chance). His damage scale (14-28) won't kill the paladin, and a maximum critical will merely stagger him. Again, the bodak has a better chance of outright killing him.
The cleric has 55 hp, 21 AC, and a +8 Fort. The bodak has a slightly better chance of killing him than the paladin (35% miss chance, equal to barbarian). The giant has the same chance to hit him as he does the paladin (25%) and again, can't kill him on a single blow. A maximum crit would drop him to -1.
The rogue has 38 hp, 19 AC, and a +3 Fort. The bodak has a great chance of killing him (12 or better, 60% chance) while the giant (35% chance to miss) can't do enough damage in one blow to down him either (though pretty close). A crit however would (bringing him well below -10).
The poor sorcerer has 30 hp 14 AC, and a +3 Fort. His chances vs. the bodak are the same (60%) as the rogues. His low AC (10% miss chance) makes him a clear target, but get this, Even Mr. d4 CAN'T DIE FROM A SINGLE HIT (he has 2 hp left). Sure, a crit will splatter him, but that's my point.
So each time the bodak jumped out, there was a 25% to 60% chance of death. The Stone Giant COULD NOT KILL a single 8th level PC in one roll. (He'd have to crit to outright kill the rogue or sorcerer, drop the cleric, or stagger the paladin, he couldn't even drop the barbarian BEFORE rage). And as we all know, a crit from a greatclub (20/x2) is not really that common (5% to threat, normal % to confirm).
So in essence, the Stone Giant has a 5% chance of killing or dropping any but the barbarian in one "hit" while the bodak is shooting at 25-60%. Both are CR 8.
And that's why SoD is broken.
A brief comparison
Because I like 8th level and our friend the bodak, we'll use them both. Now to find a group of 8th level PCs and an 8th level melee monster...
Ah, Stone Giant (CR 8)
So a barbarian8, a paladin8, a cleric8, a rogue8, and a sorcerer8 (all the major HD represented) encounter these two creatures. Lets assume they have little proper foreknowledge of the challenge, to avoid the chess analogy. Just raw stats vs. monsters. Neither monster is advanced in any way, and the PCs are using the human DMG averages to save me a lot of time.
The barbarian has 73 hp, 19 AC, and +8 Fort Save. Since this is the surprise round, he can't rage. Against the bodak (fort DC 15, he must roll a 7 or higher to survive. Thats a 35% failure rate). The Stone Giant makes his one attack (surprise round, standard action) with a +12 to hit (vs AC 19, only a 7 to hit, or 35% chance of missing) but does 2d8+12 damage (14-28 damage. Vs. that 73 hp, he's not dropping that round.) Even on a crit (28-56 damage) he's not dying in one blow.
The paladin has 56 hp, 21 AC, and a +10 Fort Save (yay divine grace!) The bodak's gaze is avoided on a 5 or higher (25% mortality rate). The Giant can hit him on a 9 or better (45% miss chance). His damage scale (14-28) won't kill the paladin, and a maximum critical will merely stagger him. Again, the bodak has a better chance of outright killing him.
The cleric has 55 hp, 21 AC, and a +8 Fort. The bodak has a slightly better chance of killing him than the paladin (35% miss chance, equal to barbarian). The giant has the same chance to hit him as he does the paladin (25%) and again, can't kill him on a single blow. A maximum crit would drop him to -1.
The rogue has 38 hp, 19 AC, and a +3 Fort. The bodak has a great chance of killing him (12 or better, 60% chance) while the giant (35% chance to miss) can't do enough damage in one blow to down him either (though pretty close). A crit however would (bringing him well below -10).
The poor sorcerer has 30 hp 14 AC, and a +3 Fort. His chances vs. the bodak are the same (60%) as the rogues. His low AC (10% miss chance) makes him a clear target, but get this, Even Mr. d4 CAN'T DIE FROM A SINGLE HIT (he has 2 hp left). Sure, a crit will splatter him, but that's my point.
So each time the bodak jumped out, there was a 25% to 60% chance of death. The Stone Giant COULD NOT KILL a single 8th level PC in one roll. (He'd have to crit to outright kill the rogue or sorcerer, drop the cleric, or stagger the paladin, he couldn't even drop the barbarian BEFORE rage). And as we all know, a crit from a greatclub (20/x2) is not really that common (5% to threat, normal % to confirm).
So in essence, the Stone Giant has a 5% chance of killing or dropping any but the barbarian in one "hit" while the bodak is shooting at 25-60%. Both are CR 8.
And that's why SoD is broken.
Remathilis
Legend
One More, you say?
So instead of a stone giant, a young adult white dragon (CR 8) flies over and breathes frost on our heroes. Reflex (DC 20) save for 5d6 damage (max 30, average 17)? Whose still standing?
The barbarian has a +4 reflex save, so he must roll a 16 or better (80%) to save. Even against the full damage, he's got 43 hp and is fine.
The Paladin has a +4 reflex save also, so he needs a 16 or better (80%) to save. Even against full damage, he has 26 hp left. No death here.
The Cleric has a measly +1 reflex save (19 or better, 10% chance) to save, but even if he takes max, he's got 25 hp left. Not dead.
The Rogue has a +9 reflex save, so he need an 11 or better (55%). If he takes full damage, he still has 8 hp. Not dead here either.
The Sorcerer has a +4 reflex save. That means a 16 or better (80%) chance of full damage. If he fails, he drops from full to 0 (staggered) but is still alive!
So if a dragon cannot down a party of equal CR in one hit...
So instead of a stone giant, a young adult white dragon (CR 8) flies over and breathes frost on our heroes. Reflex (DC 20) save for 5d6 damage (max 30, average 17)? Whose still standing?
The barbarian has a +4 reflex save, so he must roll a 16 or better (80%) to save. Even against the full damage, he's got 43 hp and is fine.
The Paladin has a +4 reflex save also, so he needs a 16 or better (80%) to save. Even against full damage, he has 26 hp left. No death here.
The Cleric has a measly +1 reflex save (19 or better, 10% chance) to save, but even if he takes max, he's got 25 hp left. Not dead.
The Rogue has a +9 reflex save, so he need an 11 or better (55%). If he takes full damage, he still has 8 hp. Not dead here either.
The Sorcerer has a +4 reflex save. That means a 16 or better (80%) chance of full damage. If he fails, he drops from full to 0 (staggered) but is still alive!
So if a dragon cannot down a party of equal CR in one hit...
