-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Poll: Do you want Save-Or-Die in 4th Edition
- Thread starter Scholar & Brutalman
- Start date
WarlockLord
First Post
Yes.
In 3e, one could, with careful preparation, beat save or dies (death ward, spell resistance, fatespinner reroll powers, etc). Saves or dies are bad, but can be beaten. Resurrection was also common.
In 4e...I don't like the roll against static defense for Save or Dies, but there should be a few monsters and high-level, extremely powerful wizard spells that can slaughter you badly, requiring an orphean quest. Most of these effects (necromancers having mastery over death, turning enemies into toads, petrification) are legendary, and should be scary.
However, to balance out all the phantasmal killers, having PCs with a 1/day +20 to any save would not be inappropriate.
In 3e, one could, with careful preparation, beat save or dies (death ward, spell resistance, fatespinner reroll powers, etc). Saves or dies are bad, but can be beaten. Resurrection was also common.
In 4e...I don't like the roll against static defense for Save or Dies, but there should be a few monsters and high-level, extremely powerful wizard spells that can slaughter you badly, requiring an orphean quest. Most of these effects (necromancers having mastery over death, turning enemies into toads, petrification) are legendary, and should be scary.
However, to balance out all the phantasmal killers, having PCs with a 1/day +20 to any save would not be inappropriate.
Save-or-die isn't a rule you need in the rulebook. It's three words, save-or-die.
Really, the description says it all. There aren't any limits on its power, and there is no really, truly acceptable level at which to balance its power.
That said, I'm a fan of some abilities which, when they kill you, kill you dead. I'm even okay with abilities which overwhelm you -- fail the save and lower level --> dead;
fail the save and within some range of the level --> penalty, say.
Really, the description says it all. There aren't any limits on its power, and there is no really, truly acceptable level at which to balance its power.
That said, I'm a fan of some abilities which, when they kill you, kill you dead. I'm even okay with abilities which overwhelm you -- fail the save and lower level --> dead;
fail the save and within some range of the level --> penalty, say.
I'm against save-or-die.
1) Its an effect which boils down to "roll a die and see if you lose." If you lose, that blows. You lost because of one die roll over which you had no control. If you win, it does nothing because all it means is that you don't lose.
2) I hate the revolving door of Raise Dead. But if you're going to regularly encounter effects which kill you about 1/3 of the time, you have to have it. Get rid of the save-or-die, and the resurrection express can shut down.
3) I hate the "I got a laser that kills you!" "Nuh-uh, I've got an anti-laser shield!" type spellcasting. But its what you get when you use save-or-die. Most save-or-die effects have a single, low level spell which completely negates them. But there's so many save-or-die type effects that you can't run around with them all. And nothing is less evocative than cancelling out an enemy's spell with your spell that has no other function other than to cancel that enemy's spell.
1) Its an effect which boils down to "roll a die and see if you lose." If you lose, that blows. You lost because of one die roll over which you had no control. If you win, it does nothing because all it means is that you don't lose.
2) I hate the revolving door of Raise Dead. But if you're going to regularly encounter effects which kill you about 1/3 of the time, you have to have it. Get rid of the save-or-die, and the resurrection express can shut down.
3) I hate the "I got a laser that kills you!" "Nuh-uh, I've got an anti-laser shield!" type spellcasting. But its what you get when you use save-or-die. Most save-or-die effects have a single, low level spell which completely negates them. But there's so many save-or-die type effects that you can't run around with them all. And nothing is less evocative than cancelling out an enemy's spell with your spell that has no other function other than to cancel that enemy's spell.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
Yes please. It's not like dying is a *big deal* in D&D...
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
Yes.
If resurrections and such make death cheap in D&D, then reducing the frequency of death only makes that worse. Bad enough that you can always be brought back from dying, but to make it so that dying itself becomes rarer just compounds the problem. Not only will you be even less likely to be killed, but you'll still come back just as easily. No more nerfing for me, thank you very much.
And besides, I like the idea that there are some things that can kill you, no matter what your hit point total is. It helps keep the playing field at least somewhat level in a world of ever-escalating hit points.
If resurrections and such make death cheap in D&D, then reducing the frequency of death only makes that worse. Bad enough that you can always be brought back from dying, but to make it so that dying itself becomes rarer just compounds the problem. Not only will you be even less likely to be killed, but you'll still come back just as easily. No more nerfing for me, thank you very much.
And besides, I like the idea that there are some things that can kill you, no matter what your hit point total is. It helps keep the playing field at least somewhat level in a world of ever-escalating hit points.
WyzardWhately
First Post
I am against them. I am entirely capable of making the PC's lives into a meatgrinder of horror and misery without arbitrary death being handed out. I can always throw in a save-or-die, but they'll probably be warned of it ahead of time. I prefer if the monsters don't come pre-loaded with stuff I'll feel the need to strip off. I mean, if you want to be realistic, a sword should be save-or-die. So it's really just a matter of where an individual DM wants to draw the line of potential sudden doom.
And I would have to strip out save-or-die effects, because it's doubly unfair if I leave them in and strip out resurrections. I can't simultaneously ask my players to put work into their characters and pursue long-term goals, AND hold out the possibility to strip that all away from them without good reason.
Sometimes PCs die, and them's the breaks. But I like it to be for a traceable reason beyond 'one bad roll.'
Incidentally, does anyone else inform the players prior to the session when the gloves are coming off? I do this. Sometimes I start out a session with the warning, "I'm going to play the monsters tough tonight. This is a high-stakes game session. If you're not on your toes, characters are going to die. Make your final arrangements before entering the dungeon."
And I would have to strip out save-or-die effects, because it's doubly unfair if I leave them in and strip out resurrections. I can't simultaneously ask my players to put work into their characters and pursue long-term goals, AND hold out the possibility to strip that all away from them without good reason.
Sometimes PCs die, and them's the breaks. But I like it to be for a traceable reason beyond 'one bad roll.'
Incidentally, does anyone else inform the players prior to the session when the gloves are coming off? I do this. Sometimes I start out a session with the warning, "I'm going to play the monsters tough tonight. This is a high-stakes game session. If you're not on your toes, characters are going to die. Make your final arrangements before entering the dungeon."
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
Yes, on the condition that save-or-dies are more difficult to actually "get through" an opponent's defenses than other spells. Save-or-dies should be for killing relatively weak creatures only, not PCs or monsters of appropriate CR.
