Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Agamon]

I'm also okay with at high level, as I have resolved never to play high level again!

Edit: Honestly though, it really depends on the kind of game you play. I can certainly see where save or die would be not just welcome, but awesome.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Yes. If you have to save or die, it means you have done something stupid that you deserve to die for. The chance to save is actually quite generous in allowing you to avoid that fate.

I don't recall that being quite true in early versions of D&D. The designers were poison crazy and almost all of those were save vs poison or die type things.

 

[Oryan77]

Petrify (happened to my character in a pathfinder game)... sucked.

I was going to post a comment and luckily an example was already given for me.

I've noticed players tend to lump any disaster that causes their PC to be out of the game for a bit as a Save or Die effect.

I don't really consider effects like Petrification to be a save or die effect. I had a player question me about that before because we have a gentleman's agreement at our table that if the players don't use save or die effects, my NPCs won't use them either. This player said, "A Basilisk?!? I thought you said no "save or die" attacks?"

My answer to the poll is in regards to anything that will flat out kill a character with a single roll even if you're at full health. Petrification is not a killer effect even though it can take the character out of the game. You can be rescued and not lose a level. It's also not that hard to be rescued from something like petrification as it would be from dying and being brought back from the dead. I see that as more of a "save or be inconvenienced" effect than a "save or die".

 

[GlassJaw]

FFZ also has a clear "normal -> Elite -> Boss" monster hierarchy, and only normal monsters (the majority of mosnters) can be affected by such attacks.

Generally, I'm not really a fan of giving a monster blanket immunities just because it's "elite" or a "boss". Just seems lazy to me and frustrating to the players. I don't like telling a player "because I said so" if they try something and it doesn't work.

The most frustrating thing for a DM is creating an important monster or NPC (especially if it will encounter the party by itself) and having the battle end quickly because of a bad roll. You can fudge the roll but how many times do you fudge it? If you keep fudging rolls, you might as well give it blanket immunities.

This is another reason why I like Action Points, especially for monsters. As a DM, I can now spend an AP to boost or reroll a save. Voila. Instant survivability.

Trailblazer provides a very simple method for creating Solo creatures: multiple its hit points but the number of PCs and give it one AP per PC. Instant epic fight.

But even more importantly, it now provides another resource that the players need to "whittle down" before defeating the monster. Providing a counter for the wizard's SoD spells doesn't lessen the effectiveness of those spells. In fact, they are a great way to force the DM to spend his APs.

 

[radmod]

My answer to the poll is in regards to anything that will flat out kill a character with a single roll even if you're at full health.

That's as succinct a definition as any. That's what I thought we were talking about: make a save or your dead stuff. Not situations, which are entirely different. Nor basic spells.
I would also include the power words, which often result in death (if not outright) and have no save.

To the guy who was saying you only face save or die if you're stupid.
I'm not trying to be snarky, but the idea that you only face save or die if you're stupid? Seriously? You've never done anything wrong but still had to face a save or die? Or the only time you did was when you played stupid?

 

[GlassJaw]

Petrify (happened to my character in a pathfinder game)... sucked. I had nothing to do for the rest of the night but roll up a new character. It's one the things that keeps me away from 3.x games.

Wouldn't it have been nice if you had some Action Points to spend that would allow you to boost your initial save, reroll the save, or get a new save in a later round?

Save-or-Die/Save-or-Suck is not an in-game problem, it's a "fun" problem. Being removed from the game for the rest of the session is no fun for anyone.

Why end someone's fun for the night just because of a bad roll?

 

[Umbran]

Yes. If you have to save or die, it means you have done something stupid that you deserve to die for.

For varying definitions of "stupid", perhaps. I mean, walking into a dungeon isn't exactly an activity you expect to increase your expected lifespan, so perhaps you can call adventuring at all "stupid".

But, once you accept that the characters are going into a dungeon (or whatever other adventuring-scenario) with anything less than an army and a corps of engineers as non-stupid, then I don't think your statement is true. Doubly so if you're not the sort that allows players to use knowledge of monsters and characters that the PCs would not have.

Poison traps and spellcasters and monsters you've never heard of can get the drop on you. In classic modules they were specifically designed to get the drop on you. Then, save or die isn't a matter of stupid.

I can buy your argument when the PCs have information, and don't use it wisely. But it doesn't hold for cases where they cannot be reasonably expected to avoid the incident.

 

[Umbran]

Petrification is not a killer effect even though it can take the character out of the game. You can be rescued and not lose a level.

It looks, quacks, and walks like a duck:

You can't take action until someone (who survives the encounter) hauls your carcass (which is now brittle, and probably weighs a significant fraction of a ton) out of the situation and back to town to get a spell cast? The only practical difference between being turned to stone and being dead is how pliable your flesh is! Sounds like death to me.

 

[parvatiquinta]

As a DM I put a lot of emphasis on character background and development. I don't entirely despise the random factor, but I'd rather it didn't impact the game very deeply, or at least not as immediately as only requiring a single die roll.

I also dislike resurrection-like tricks to the point of not allowing them in many of my settings. So removing save or die is only fair.

 

[malraux]

It looks, quacks, and walks like a duck:

You can't take action until someone (who survives the encounter) hauls your carcass (which is now brittle, and probably weighs a significant fraction of a ton) out of the situation and back to town to get a spell cast? The only practical difference between being turned to stone and being dead is how pliable your flesh is! Sounds like death to me.

Gotta agree with that. And of course, Stone to Flesh forces a true save or die, though there's still Break Enchantment.

Personally, Save or Die effects in the 3e mold are on my game no-no list. Its the kind of thing where I'll walk out of the game and just not come back. They don't inspire fear in me, just absolute unfun. I've had too many situations of showing up then sitting out for the rest of the night having rolled a single die to fail a saving throw.