Removing save-or-die: Too much of a good thing?

[Three_Haligonians]

So this is my first 4e thread, please be gentle

Let me say that I am pretty pro-4e; I see a lot of things that I like, and at worst I've been saying to myself "eh.. I wouldn't have done that.. but I can work with it".

My current Epic game in 3.5 has one player with an enchantment based sorcerer character and it has become a real problem that either the opponent is completely hosed by dominate monster or completely immune to mind-affecting spells (because of magic items or creature type or what have you).

So when I read that save-or-die effects were being cut back in 4e I was very pleased. When I read that sleep still slowed the target even when they made their save I was ecstatic; I thought it was a great idea. I just read about the goblin picador and how with his harpoon on a failed save he can move a PC 3 squares, and on a successful save, just 1. That's pretty cool too.

Here is my concern though; as much as I like the cut-down on save-or-die, I don't think I want it to be removed entirely. I mean, I understand how no one wants to be ineffective against their opponents but there is something to be said for being able to shrug off the effect with no penalty right? Having your attack fail against the BBEG is part of the game too, it makes for some tension and some quick thinking about what to try next. Likewise it's fun for the PCs to stand there and laugh off an attack.

I should mention that I've not read all the released 4e rules from DDI or DDXP and the like so I might just not have seen these things. If that's the case, feel free to just let me know and I'll be reassured.

Just thought I'd voice a concern

J from Three Haligonians

 

[keterys]

It's typically just daily abilities that have a guaranteed effect - at-wills and encounters can just 'Miss' too.

Of course, there won't be any 'save or dies', but check out things like the Bodak to see that there are still some serious options.

 

[Propheous_D]

Saver or Die mechanics being relied on to impose a level of stress or relief in my eyes is a rather distinct crutch. Extremes are all ways something employed out of desperation or ignorance. The world is not black and white and I don't want my gaming to be that either. Just my onion.

 

[FourthBear]

I don't believe there will be any rules in 4e to prevent new monster, magical item or PC abilities from being save-or-die. However, I suspect that no such examples shall be presented in the core rules. I think that the occasional exception to general game design is a good idea: it prevents complacency from players who come to think of the game world in metagaming terms and it provides some narrative contrast from the expected values. The big problem with such powers appearing the PH is that traditionally abilities found in those sources are defaults that players expect to be able to access. Yes, a campaign can always house-rule them away, but it creates the expectation that those books contain good examples.

I might use occasional save-or-lose effects, but only with the foreknowledge that such powers would likely be detrimental if they were to become common or enter general play. Having a Great Evil be characterized by an aura that kills instantly might be OK in some specific circumstances: the players have ample opportunity to learn of this aura and to reasonably avoid it. If they do not, then save-or-lose or even auto-lose might be appropriate. We've already heard suggestions that in 4e falling in lava is automatic death, not slow hit point damage.

 

[Andur]

I think if we take the dying rules and apply them to "save or die" we might find a happy medium...

Make save or die a multiple round thing, something like you get hit, effect "A" goes into effect, fail save 1, effect "B" goes into effect, fail save 3 you die. If you want a more absolute system, then make it round based, so "Flesh to Stone" would be hit for damage, then slowed, incapacitated, dead on a per round basis. It would give the "immiediate save" functions of the Leaders a lil more needed/powerful though.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Here is my concern though; as much as I like the cut-down on save-or-die, I don't think I want it to be removed entirely. I mean, I understand how no one wants to be ineffective against their opponents but there is something to be said for being able to shrug off the effect with no penalty right? Having your attack fail against the BBEG is part of the game too, it makes for some tension and some quick thinking about what to try next. Likewise it's fun for the PCs to stand there and laugh off an attack.

WHile I understand your concern and probably share a small amount of it, the problem with save-or-die is that for players it becomes standard procedure, which eventually removes some of the tension it is supposed to create.

 

[Cadfan]

It sounds like your concern is this: you don't like the way save-or-die randomly kills BBEGs, and player characters. But you do like it when a character laughs off a dangerous attack.

There are still a lot of dangerous attacks that are negated completely when they fail. But, 1) there are less of them, 2) there are a lot of attacks that do damage then negate on a save after a round or so, and 3) a lot of the best abilities have partial effects when they fail.

It is a bit of a change of pace from 3e.

In 3e, if I stab someone with the Poison Blade of Poisonousness, chances are it will work like this: Roll Attack at +20 versus AC of 27, if I hit I do weapon damage and the target makes a Fortitude Save of DC 21 or takes 1d4 Con damage. In 4e, it appears that the mechanic we can expect will be more like this: Roll Attack at +20 versus AC of 27, on a hit I do weapon damage and the target takes 5 ongoing Poison damage, save ends.

And finally, total speculation! A feat will exist that permits you to use an action point to gain an extra saving throw outside of your normal turn order. If it does not exist in the PHB, it will be written. Using action points to soldier through a particularly dangerous ongoing effect is too good not to get written.

 

[Doug McCrae]

SoD provides great drama and excitement, no doubt about it. Problem is, it's not a good fit for post-old school PCs with detailed personalities, backgrounds (and, since 3e, mechanics). Easy death coupled with hard PC creation doesn't work. The OD&D/1e approach of 'easy come, easy go' made sense. 4e is adopting a completely different approach, now it's much harder to die. I think it's the right approach for the times.

 

[delericho]

Save-or-die as it exists in 3.5e suffers both when the save is made and when it is failed.

If the save is failed, the target is suddenly out of the game. If this is the BBEG, it's probably an anti-climax, but really no biggie. However, if it's a PC, you then have a player sitting out of the game and bored for at least the rest of the combat, and probably for several hours until his character can be raised or a new character introduced.

If the save is made, then you've just wasted your actions for the round, and probably one of your most potent abilities, to no avail. Especially for lone BBEGs, that is the kiss of death.

There are several ways to fix this, of course. My preferred option would have been to move from a binary success/failure to a more graduated approach. Essentially, I think the game needs some mystic analogue to hit points, such that characters can be whittled down to the point where their mental defences are insufficient to resist that dominate, or whatever.

The 4e approach of having a minor effect on a failed attack roll, and a greater effect on a success, but removing both the absolute success and absolute failure options works too.

 

[Doug McCrae]

My current Epic game in 3.5 has one player with an enchantment based sorcerer character and it has become a real problem that either the opponent is completely hosed by dominate monster or completely immune to mind-affecting spells (because of magic items or creature type or what have you).

That's a tiny part of it. There are so many binary, safe-or-screwed effects in previous editions of D&D. Lots of spells and powers that are utterly horrendous but completely negated by some cleric spell, the main reason someone had to play the cleric incidentally. I'm not sure if it was intentional (I have a feeling it was) but it leads to a game where, if you have the right casters and sufficient intel, you're perfectly safe. If either isn't the case, you die horribly. The rogue is the same - either he's awesome or he sucks - no middle ground.

The most exciting fights are close, but the PCs win, but this type of game design seems purposefully to remove the middle ground. It removes the precise area one *wants* the game to be in.

And that sucks. Let's see an end to binary effects.