Players, DMs and Save or Die

[FireLance]

I'm glad RFisher brought up Symbol of Death.

Here's a question - if SoD effects should only be brought out if the party has a reasonable chance of foreknowledge and countering, should SoD EVER be used as a trap?

I adopt the same approach for save or die traps as I do for save or die monsters. Reasonably good play will usually give the PCs a warning or a way to get around the traps. For example, if the PCs help the villagers drive off the Dark Lord's Black Raiders, a grizzled ex-adventurer will show them the secret entrance to the Dark Lord's castle that conveniently bypasses all his save or die traps. Or, one of the raiders might have a scrap of parchment on them which reads: "WARNING! Second door on the right in the basement corridor warded by death magic. DO NOT ENTER!"

 

[Ahglock]

Ummmm.

Rrriiiiiight.

*Both* of those monsters (Stone giant and Bodak) are on the Random Encounter Table. So, I guess people *are* supposed to use monsters with SoD effects the same way as something like a 'simple stone giant' in the current edition.

The pro save and die crowd, does not think you should use a Bodak as a random encounter. It was poorly put there on that list, and there should probably be some text in all save or Die monster stats that mention you should give some kind of warning because the real defense to save or die spells ins't HP its preparation.

We agree Bodak crappy random encounter, but we think save or dies can work in the game. I think 3e has a crappy resolution for save or dies, but i still think they are cool and good rules can be made to implement them fairly.

 

[Hussar]

I adopt the same approach for save or die traps as I do for save or die monsters. Reasonably good play will usually give the PCs a warning or a way to get around the traps. For example, if the PCs help the villagers drive off the Dark Lord's Black Raiders, a grizzled ex-adventurer will show them the secret entrance to the Dark Lord's castle that conveniently bypasses all his save or die traps. Or, one of the raiders might have a scrap of parchment on them which reads: "WARNING! Second door on the right in the basement corridor warded by death magic. DO NOT ENTER!"

Another module - Lords of the Iron Fortress - places multiple Symbols of Death underneath the Macguffin. Is this viable or not?

 

[Hussar]

As far as the random encounter goes - well, I'm not a big fan of monsters that require high levels of additional work in order to use. Given the choice of stuffing in all sorts of warnings, making sure that there is no way that the party can proceed without at least having a chance of discovering the encounter, then, when the PC's meet the encounter, having a puff ball combat where the well prepped party stomps all over the encounter without breaking a sweat, or, just using a stock monster, I'll use the stock monster.

Why should I do all the work only to wind up with a totally anticlimactic battle?

 

[FireLance]

Another module - Lords of the Iron Fortress - places multiple Symbols of Death underneath the Macguffin. Is this viable or not?

Probably not the way I'd run it, but it might suit some other gaming style.

 

[Ahglock]

Another module - Lords of the Iron Fortress - places multiple Symbols of Death underneath the Macguffin. Is this viable or not?

Depends on how many HP in damage a trap would normally do. Symbol of death effects any creature under 80HP?
If a damaging trap would do 65+ I'd say its a valid trap.(pulling the 65# out of thin air, play test would determine a better balance than my random guess)

If its out of scale to the damaging traps then no I wouldn't call it viable.

 

[FireLance]

As far as the random encounter goes - well, I'm not a big fan of monsters that require high levels of additional work in order to use. Given the choice of stuffing in all sorts of warnings, making sure that there is no way that the party can proceed without at least having a chance of discovering the encounter, then, when the PC's meet the encounter, having a puff ball combat where the well prepped party stomps all over the encounter without breaking a sweat, or, just using a stock monster, I'll use the stock monster.

Why should I do all the work only to wind up with a totally anticlimactic battle?

By all means, use the stock monster if the effort:fun ratio isn't worth it for you. If I'm pressed for time when preparing a game, I'd probably do that, too.

Sometimes, however, I want to plan for a fight that is perhaps EL = APL+4 (winnable, but with a significant probability of some casualties) if the PCs are unprepared, but EL = APL+2 (challenging, but all PCs are likely to survive) if they perform reasonably well, discover the relevant information and take the necessary precautions in the run-up to the fight. It gives the players a chance to feel good when their PCs get targeted by a death attack which fails because they have death ward up, and again when they beat their opponents after a fairly tough but not lethal fight.

 

[Hussar]

By all means, use the stock monster if the effort:fun ratio isn't worth it for you. If I'm pressed for time when preparing a game, I'd probably do that, too.

Sometimes, however, I want to plan for a fight that is perhaps EL = APL+4 (winnable, but with a significant probability of some casualties) if the PCs are unprepared, but EL = APL+2 (challenging, but all PCs are likely to survive) if they perform reasonably well, discover the relevant information and take the necessary precautions in the run-up to the fight. It gives the players a chance to feel good when their PCs get targeted by a death attack which fails because they have death ward up, and again when they beat their opponents after a fairly tough but not lethal fight.

RC brought that up before as well about not all encounters are at par. That's true. However, those same rules he's pointing to say that I could drop 15 or so Bodak encounters on my 8th level party for every CR 13 challenge I toss their way. Yet, despite the fact that the 15 Bodak encounters should not result in a single PC fatality, they are almost guaranteed to whack as many or more PC's than the CR +5 encounter.

That's my point. SoD disproportionately kills PC's based on the challenge. A CR 8 encounter vs an 8th level party should NOT result in a fatality. It should be a fairly easy fight. Yet, because of SoD, I've got a reasonable chance of killing at least 1 PC. It's far and away too powerful.

Depends on how many HP in damage a trap would normally do. Symbol of death effects any creature under 80HP?
If a damaging trap would do 65+ I'd say its a valid trap.(pulling the 65# out of thin air, play test would determine a better balance than my random guess)

If its out of scale to the damaging traps then no I wouldn't call it viable.

Umm... Symbol of Death:

This spell allows you to scribe a potent rune of power upon a surface. When triggered, a symbol of death slays one or more creatures within 60 feet of the symbol (treat as a burst) whose combined total current hit points do not exceed 150. The symbol of death affects the closest creatures first, skipping creatures with too many hit points to affect. Once triggered, the symbol becomes active and glows, lasting for 10 minutes per caster level or until it has affected 150 hit points’ worth of creatures, whichever comes first. Any creature that enters the area while the symbol of death is active is subject to its effect, whether or not that creature was in the area when it was triggered. A creature need save against the symbol only once as long as it remains within the area, though if it leaves the area and returns while the symbol is still active, it must save again.

A fair bit more powerful than 65 hit points.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

With all of that, I'm done. I don't think I can add any other example, anecdote, or argument that will convince you (or anyone else Pro SoD) that the game will be better off without them. I'm glad I'll be able to open up my 4e books and not worry about them again. I'm glad a large amount of the Enworld population agrees with me.

Take care and good gaming.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if they haven't put some sort of save-or-die-like effect in 4E as well, but it will probably work with in a way that will be more palatable to you and the rest of the roughly 66% of the voters that are against save-or-die. At least I hope they will, since it seems to be a big thorn in the side of many.
I also hope they won't have reduced it to a boring "save or suffer heaps of damage" rule. There's half a dozen more creative ideas in these two threads alone than save-or-damage.

One thing I definitely get out of these discussions is a good view at where 3E design did some fairly obvious blunders. Bodaks as random encounter monsters, for example, instead of special effect monsters. Death effect spells that in older editions were the providence of the mightiest mages and clerics (in a game that routinely stops around level 13-14, 9th level IS damn powerful) put to work as everyday weapons at half-level-cap (in a game designed for 20+ levels, level 9 is simply half the way). And apparently, more focus on mechanically expressing the whole stuff than on telling the DM what to actually DO with all those abilities, judging from some of the comments here. CR doesn't count, that mechanic is thrown out of whack by so many things I don't really consider it reliable anyway.

Oh, and to answer one of Hussar's posts...why should I have a problem with an encounter that is guaranteed to kill one out of four characters? Isn't that what an appropriate challenge rating is supposed to do? Eliminate 25% of the group's resources? One out of four. Just because there are some monsters that don't spread that out over the whole group, but simply punch out one character completely instead? If I shied away from the potential of a dead character, I shouldn't use strong encounters.

And yep, I'm going to bow out of this cyclic discussion a well. All has been said, and I think I've got a pretty good picture of the different opinions now, so even if we didn't come to a consense in this discussion, I think it was way from wasted time.

Good gaming, and see you in another thread.

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC brought that up before as well about not all encounters are at par. That's true. However, those same rules he's pointing to say that I could drop 15 or so Bodak encounters on my 8th level party for every CR 13 challenge I toss their way. Yet, despite the fact that the 15 Bodak encounters should not result in a single PC fatality, they are almost guaranteed to whack as many or more PC's than the CR +5 encounter.

The encounter as described should be as fair as any other in the AP. Why not? At that point, surely they know that they are pissing off Demogorgon, and surely they can deal with sudden PC death.

HOWEVER, I am not a big fan of railroads. "Here are a bunch of encounters you cannot avoid" never struck me as a good time.

A SoD trap in a dungeon is fair play, so long as the players have reasonable means to determine that it is so. This means, sometimes, that they know your playstyle. SoD on a lever in a disused room, and your players know such a thing is possible? They should distrust it. SoD on a random square in the dungeon? Generally not cool.

RC