Save or Die, would it bother you as a player if

[Ichneumon]

Sure, I'd play "Optional D&D Hardcore" if my PC was a barbarian with a large extended family of similar adventure-ready individuals.

 

[tlantl]

Constantly resurrecting people makes for a terrible terrible story. I don't want to be using what amounts to a Final Fantasy phoenix down or a one-up all the bloody time. That's not even getting into how boring it is when you die from the first action in the encounter.

Looks to me that someone at your table needs to play smarter, or your DM needs to get his head out of his but.

Save or die situations are rare enough that there is no need to worry about them.

Using raise deads is part of the game. If you don't like using them and you die a lot then use the down time to roll another character.

 

[Wightbred]

The latest version of Warhammer has an interesting option, you can move your player down a track where they engage with more risk for a higher pay-off as the combat ensues or they can go the other way for less risk and a lower payoff. I really liked this bit of the game, as it let me (who likes lots of risk) and more cautious people get what we wanted at the same time. It's kind of like that Careful Strike power in 4e: I wouldn't bother with it but some people like more certainty for a lower payoff.

Removing the specific Warhammer rules, I'm fine with the concept that my character could engage in more or less risk than another PC. If you said to me "make 10 rolls and if you fail 5 you die, or just make one roll now" I would take the one now, but I wouldn't want to force anyone else to do the same.

In line with modular design, how about this for a mechanic that suits both ideas at the same time? If you are affected by a deadly spell, choose either to:
- Push through it: Make a easy roll and shrug off the effect or die; OR
- Shake it off: Take 10 ongoing and make a hard roll each round to stop the damage.

So you could have mathematically equivalent and similar rules for all characters, but make it totally optional to the player and the situation. (Assuming, of course, that you also balance for the chance that someone could remove the ongoing effect by another means.)

Man, I hope something like this is in 5e, even as an optional module, because I'm ready to roll to "Push through it" right now.

 

[Minigiant]

Penalties and punishment should be the same tablewide. Things like resistances, immunities, vulnerablities, classe features, and racial feature could cause different reactions. Anything else is a no.

 

[Ahnehnois]

PCs should follow the same basic rules as other PCs, and NPCs.

 

[Greg K]

I don't remember hitting the submit button, but it says that I voted. Therefore, I think it put me down for the first or second choice while I was seeing whether it was multiple choice.

My choice is, actually, the third. Both bother me-same rules should apply.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yep, fair play to me means that the basic rules apply to everyone at the table (DM included).

That said, I firmly believe there should be save-or-die options in the game -- if only to handle lava!

 

[delericho]

Both would bother me. The rules should represent a shared baseline for the game, and not so fundamentally different from one PC to another.

This business of "people from all editions playing together" has to be a shorthand for 5e being able to build characters like those in previous editions, or for the game itself being customisable to mirror each previous edition. If they're saying that the game is literally different for each participant, then they're busy creating a game I have absolutely no interest in playing.

 

[malkav666]

Thats a tough one. I think though that in the end there will not be several different ruleset approaches on monsters. It doesn't make sense. I think the monster will present a unified threat that no matter where your dials are turned that it would mean the same thing across the board for failure. Otherwise it just doesn't work because then there can be no balance.

I think save or die, or save or suck should be in the game. But I think both should be rare. They can be very motivating tools if you are trying to give the group combats which require new tactics, or you would like to encourage the group to roleplay and find out a little bit about the monster whose door they want to kick down, who they want to murder, and whos treasure they want to steal for themselves. It also makes characters who invested heavily in being book smart feel validated.

But both save for one turn and save or suck should not be present for the same attack in the same encounter. It just does not work.

love,

malkav

 

[Storminator]

I think it's an interesting idea. I can see all sorts of table arguments tho. This is one of those ideas that I wouldn't implement unless everyone at the table was in agreement.

Not, however, I REALLY want to run a game where every player at the table uses a different set of rules.

PS