Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Geron Raveneye" data-source="post: 3855861" data-attributes="member: 2268">Sorry, got to disagree here, simply because that negative connotation you give save-or-die effects is entirely yours. Basically, they are a tool, a mechanical way for the DM to represent those effects like the Avara Kedavra curse (or similar things, like a basilisk's gaze), and the fact that extremely powerful spellcasters (remember when a 5th level spell was a HIGH level spell in D&amp;D?) can snuff out a life without much fuss. HOW they are used (or abused, as complained on by many posters here) is up to the DM, or the players who have the spell in their repertoire. It's completely valid for a DM to use save-or-die as a plot device, as something that signifies something special, etc. That's not a cop-out, that's a DM using a tool as he sees it fitting into his game.That goes for most D&amp;D rules, by the way...they are tools that can be used in the game to represent certain things or events. It is 3E that has started integrating and cross-depending rules so tightly that they seem to be required ALL for a good game.So maybe 4E needs to make those effects more powerful (higher spell levels), rarer (only special monsters with save-or-die effects), and with more &quot;DM handholding&quot; (clarifying when those special monsters should be used, and what consequences a save-or-die effect can have on the game), but I doubt the game will really win something by taking them out of it completely.And even if Sirius Black and Dumbledore were &quot;only&quot; NPCs/Mentors...it's still the closest method of replicating those effects. And really, if we HAD a Harry Potter RPG, should there be a clause to the Avada Kedavra, saying &quot;Only to be used by NPCs against NPCs&quot;? Because I can remember Harry and his friends dodging quite a few of those in OotP. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Geron Raveneye, post: 3855861, member: 2268"] Sorry, got to disagree here, simply because that negative connotation you give save-or-die effects is entirely yours. Basically, they are a tool, a mechanical way for the DM to represent those effects like the Avara Kedavra curse (or similar things, like a basilisk's gaze), and the fact that extremely powerful spellcasters (remember when a 5th level spell was a HIGH level spell in D&D?) can snuff out a life without much fuss. HOW they are used (or abused, as complained on by many posters here) is up to the DM, or the players who have the spell in their repertoire. It's completely valid for a DM to use save-or-die as a plot device, as something that signifies something special, etc. That's not a cop-out, that's a DM using a tool as he sees it fitting into his game. That goes for most D&D rules, by the way...they are tools that can be used in the game to represent certain things or events. It is 3E that has started integrating and cross-depending rules so tightly that they seem to be required ALL for a good game. So maybe 4E needs to make those effects more powerful (higher spell levels), rarer (only special monsters with save-or-die effects), and with more "DM handholding" (clarifying when those special monsters should be used, and what consequences a save-or-die effect can have on the game), but I doubt the game will really win something by taking them out of it completely. And even if Sirius Black and Dumbledore were "only" NPCs/Mentors...it's still the closest method of replicating those effects. And really, if we HAD a Harry Potter RPG, should there be a clause to the Avada Kedavra, saying "Only to be used by NPCs against NPCs"? Because I can remember Harry and his friends dodging quite a few of those in OotP. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification