Players, DMs and Save or Die

[Geron Raveneye]

Right...I see. Heh, my bad. But I'm not sure it's not backfiring right now.

Anyway, what I wanted to ask...what you call "Monster Level" system, where can I take a look at that? I know that monster XP are calculated from a HD baseline, with XP/Hit Point, for special and for extraordinary abilities. Found the table back in the DMG, too. But where are the monster levels taken from those XP? Do I have to dig through my Monstrous Manuals for that?

EDIT: Nevermind, found it...Appendix C in the DMG.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

(1) ML works on the basis of concrete, empirical qualities of monsters. It doesn't work on how the designers "feel" the monster will do. Although "feel" can be adjusted, those adjustment are never (contrary to claims otherwise) empirical in nature (they are based on anecdotal "evidence").

Well, if by "concrete, empirical qualities" you mean "things that were designed and playtested to determine the appropriate level," then it applies to both, really. If you don't mean that, I'm not sure what you do mean. In either case, we're relying on the designer to determine whether a particular special power is appropriate for a group of, say, 12th level PCs. In either case, while it's easy enough to balance the monster's to-hit and damage, it's harder to figure out how things like flight, battlefield control, mental control, stunning, or other special attacks will work out, alone or in synergy with other powers. That falls to educated guesses and playtesting. I don't see how the ML system will provide a better ground for that.

(4) You do not need a baseline party to prevent ML from having wonky effects.

What makes you say that? Also, I never found this argument against CR particularly convincing. I often run games for non-standard parties, and they do just fine if they make sure to pack some healing gear.

(5) Neither CR nor ML allows for exact determination of how PCs will interact with special abilities that might radically alter how an encounter works. The CR rules, however, imply that they will do so, whereas the ML rules do not.

Don't 4E monsters have special abilities? If they do, and they have definite Monster Levels, then the ML rules attempt to account for those abilities in determining the level of a monster.

In any case, to address what you said here:

If SoD was the only place that the CR System was woefully inadequate, then I would be forced to agree with you. However, IME, it "sucks donkey" (as was politely put earlier), and is at best a poor man's version of Monster Level.

I don't see how the CR system is to blame for SoD effects not interfacing well with it, because I don't see them interfacing well with a ML system either. They're just not the sort of thing that is "too hard" or "too weak" at any level. They either kill you or they don't, and the exact odds of that happening are kind of irrelevant to their balance.

As you've pointed out, the key to SoD is knowing when they're going to happen and undermining the effect. But what level is it appropriate to do that at? It's not really a question of level, but of level-independent factors. SoD simply doesn't interact well with level-dependant factors. The only thing you can do is alter DCs to keep them consistently deadly as levels go up.

So whatever other faults the CR system has, they're irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about SoD. The problem isn't whether the CR system is broken. The problem is that save-or-die, specifically, does not interface well with the CR system, and it wouldn't interface well with the ML system either, if they were to leave SoD in the game.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I was pointing out an argument faux pas, and altered the quote enough that it no longer belongs in quote tags. The point was simply that the argument I was replying to applied as much to CR/EL as SoD, and therefore prevented its being used as evidence that "The CR System can't handle X, therefore X is broken" as a valid line of reasoning.

RC

Right, so let's refine it to read, "systems that estimate the appropriate party level for a particular challenge can't handle X, therefore in games like D&D, which use such a mechanism, X is broken."

 

[Hussar]

Re: The giant against the 4th level party.

Note, CR does state that you should expect PC fatalities here. Just sayin'

Yup, I'll likely whack a PC, mostly because of a combination of factors. Mostly because giants are woefully under CR'ed, just like dragons. However, I am also right in thinking that in that encounter, I have a high chance of PC death because I've gone way above EL.

A 13th level party who steamrolls a Glabrezu likely has a DM that is not terribly tactically minded. If they're creaming it in 2 rounds, there's probably something wrong. The likeliest culprit in my mind is the PC's are built on very high point buys and are operating a level or two above what's on their character sheet. Seems to be the usual suspect.

However, glass cannon DOES NOT REFER to the party. But, you know this, so, I'm not going to restate my argument.

Note, the 66% chance of death from SoD assumes ONLY a 5% chance of death/save. That's simply not true. That's the minimum. The chance of death is likely MUCH higher.

To me, if you have to hang neon signs, as Remalthalis says, then the mechanic is poor. And that's precisely what some are saying you should do - never drop SoD as a random encounter, always drop hints to the party/allow the party to learn the existence of the SoD monster AND allow them to counter it.

Let me rephrase my question. Why do you want a mechanic in the game that leads either to encounters that are much more lethal than standard or encounters which are cakewalks? Especially after spending time calling specific attention to the encounter and building it up in the player's minds.

 

[Remathilis]

It must be dark where you are, because you are setting out straw men that are easily burned.

RC

Sorry RC, you really opened yourself up for that one.

However it begs the question:

If Save or Die is incompatible with the challenge rating/encounter level system, which should be removed: SoD or CR?

The answer (and its a value judgment) depends which is more important to you: the ability to kill a character (PC or NPC) in one spell, or a system that guestimates the power level of a particular monster.

Personally, I'd rather keep some element of CR than SoD, but clearly you'd the opposite.

To answer your snark: It's Michigan and Daylight Savings Time: Its dark at 5 PM here...

 

[FireLance]

Let me rephrase my question. Why do you want a mechanic in the game that leads either to encounters that are much more lethal than standard or encounters which are cakewalks? Especially after spending time calling specific attention to the encounter and building it up in the player's minds.

First off, save or die doesn't necessarily mean that the difference in encounter difficulty for a party that is unprepared/prepared will be "much more lethal than standard"/"cakewalk". Ideally, the difference should be "potentially lethal"/"still challenging". Admittedly, there are save or die creatures in 3e for which the former is true (e.g. the bodak).

As for why spend time calling specific attention to the encounter and building it up in the players' minds, this turns the save or die ability into a challenge within a challenge. In a way, it is a riddle or a puzzle in an alternate form, and would appeal to players who enjoy such challenges. Find the clues, solve the riddle or puzzle, and the players are rewarded with an easier fight. Fail to solve it, and the fight turns potentially lethal.

That said, you don't need a save or die ability to achieve either of the above. Save or be pretty much useless, or save or take a lot of damage could also achieve both the above aims. However, if your players enjoy the thrill of the additional risk, by all means use save or die.

 

[Lanefan]

Note, the 66% chance of death from SoD assumes ONLY a 5% chance of death/save. That's simply not true. That's the minimum. The chance of death is likely MUCH higher.

Perhaps, though it also depends on how many times the creature is able to get its death effect away, and at how many targets each time. A Beholder, for example, gets its death and disintegrate rays once per round (assuming they happen to be pointing the right way) at single targets...*and* they have to roll to hit. Now, it's only rolling vs. touch, so it's going to hit most of the time; but that it can miss still lowers the death chance. Compare this with a Banshee, who (in 1e anyway) can only wail once per *day* but auto-forces everyone around her who can hear into a SoD. Compare this with a Medusa...or Bodak, or Basilisk...whose death ability is always-on. Those are the ones that'll run up the death count!

Let me rephrase my question. Why do you want a mechanic in the game that leads either to encounters that are much more lethal than standard or encounters which are cakewalks? Especially after spending time calling specific attention to the encounter and building it up in the player's minds.

I like the mechanic mainly because it allows me when designing monsters to build a glass cannon if I want to. Ditto for level-drainers, and critters that can do other very nasty things. I prefer the variety...some monsters are all-defense-no-offense, others the reverse, and many do both equally well (or badly). I'd far rather see that than hear "ho hum, another bag of experience p...er, I mean hit points" from the players when a battle starts.

Lanefan

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Re: The giant against the 4th level party.

Note, CR does state that you should expect PC fatalities here. Just sayin'

Yep, and yet encounters with that difficulty should make up roughly 15% of the encounters a group should have should be of that level, which means of 7 encounters, one should be of EL +1-4. So, to turn the question back at you, is an encounter with a very high probability of death for at least one PC a good encounter? According to the DMG, it is.

Yup, I'll likely whack a PC, mostly because of a combination of factors. Mostly because giants are woefully under CR'ed, just like dragons. However, I am also right in thinking that in that encounter, I have a high chance of PC death because I've gone way above EL.

So the CR system works...it just has the wrong numbers?
The funny part about an EL=CR encounter is that it still is supposed to "seriously threaten at least one member of the group in some way". To me, seriously threaten still means there is a good probability of that PC being killed, if the dice roll the wrong way. Remember, the CR system is a pretty abstract system. An encounter that should take the standard group 25% of their resources to overcome might as well cost one character his life while the rest doesn't lose anything at all, since one character out of four comprises 25% of the group's resources. A case where a group meets a bodak, the rogue bites the dust and the other three kill the bodak with eyes closed would be such an encounter as well. Ideally, the resources lost are distributed across all members of the group, of course, but sometimes it simply happens differently.

Note, the 66% chance of death from SoD assumes ONLY a 5% chance of death/save. That's simply not true. That's the minimum. The chance of death is likely MUCH higher.

To get the details back, you quoted that number as a chance to kill a 20th level character with 5 creatures when you brought it up. I assume you're talking about bodaks again, correct me of I'm wrong. Dr. Awkward cited 65% as the limit the probability to roll a 1 on XdN approaches for N > 10 and X => infinite (which assumes a 5% chance of death from 20 bodaks or so). For 5d20, the chance on a 1 is more like 1-[(20-1)/20]^5, which is around 23%, if my math hasn't left me completely. So no, 66% is not the minimum. And unless you roam the Abyss, or a Bodak lair, you shouldn't meet that many of them in one encounter anyway.

To me, if you have to hang neon signs, as Remalthalis says, then the mechanic is poor. And that's precisely what some are saying you should do - never drop SoD as a random encounter, always drop hints to the party/allow the party to learn the existence of the SoD monster AND allow them to counter it.

To me, if all monsters conform to a relatively narrow spectrum of usability, then the design is boring and uninspiring. I'd rather have some monsters that come with an outrageously dangerous ability to make the players use their characters' abilities to their best before they meet the enemy in order to prepare for it, and reward that behaviour by actually making the preparations pay off. The challenge in those cases is not in surviving a toe-to-toe battle with the monster, but in finding its weakness and exploit that, so the monster is not a threat anymore.
Obviously, we all are playing the game long enough that, for the player, rumors of a beast that kills with its gaze in a tomb or a veiled woman with a creepy taste for screaming garden ornaments is nothing but a blip on the radar. I can assure you that it still captures the attention of new players who are not as steeped in D&D lore (and sometimes not even in myth and legend) as most of us more experienced players are.

Let me rephrase my question. Why do you want a mechanic in the game that leads either to encounters that are much more lethal than standard or encounters which are cakewalks? Especially after spending time calling specific attention to the encounter and building it up in the player's minds.

Because I don't want the game to cater only to those who think every challenge has to be a combat that stretches on for rounds and rounds, even if the characters prepared themselves. I WANT some monsters to be glass cannons once their weakness has been exploited. If a group researches a bodak and prepares for it with Death Ward or a blindsight ability, they should reap the rewards of having cheated death, literally. It's the same as being clever enough to prepare and successfully cast Silence on a wizard and then clubbing him to death in 2 rounds. Preparation should lead to combats being over QUICKLY, that's why people prepare for it.
And I want some monsters to have an ability that simply awes those who have not been jaded by years and years of play, who come into the game fresh and have to meet the challenge of a medusa's gaze, a banshee's wail or a cockatrice's tail for the first time, and who usually get a special thrill from having overcome death in a more tangible sense that loss of all hit points.
I'm pretty sure you (and others) either don't agree to all this, or will tell me now that exchanging these abilities with other effects will produce the same effect. All can say is that I don't think so, that a "save or be unconscious" gaze will never have the same impact on a player as a "save or death" gaze...but tastes vary, and can't be argued with. But I'd say taking out this option of the game simply robs it of a tool for the DM to create something special now and then (with some handholding in the DMG/MM for beginning DMs, etc...was all already mentioned in this discussion).

 

[Geron Raveneye]

If Save or Die is incompatible with the challenge rating/encounter level system, which should be removed: SoD or CR?

I'd say CR...replace it with something that works better with ALL abilities that appear in D&D, instead of having to chop off those it doesn't work well with.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, if by "concrete, empirical qualities" you mean "things that were designed and playtested to determine the appropriate level," then it applies to both, really.

I'll accept that as soon as you show me what specific factors CR is derived from.

I answered your question. I don't believe that this is an appropriate place to answer a series of questions about my answer. Like I said, though, I'd be happy to take this discussion of CR/EL to another thread; it is serious topic drift on this one, IMHO.

RC