Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Hussar]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, doesn't a basilisk cause you to explode in fire, not turn to stone, in myth?

As far as 100% goes - sorry, I wasn't perfectly clear for the pedantic amongst us. 100% was, as was pretty obvious in context, refering to the times, not numbers of characters.

If you have a 50/50 chance of dying and have to make 4 saves, then the chance of (any given character) is very close to 100%.

Of course, everyone here knew that.

Dasuul - yup, it's pretty much the combination of SoD with the gaze (or any area of effect) mechanic that is my specific beef. The fact that any AoE SoD effect will result in at least one death almost every time, barring something that specifically blocks the effect, makes it far too powerful.

A snakes SoD bite isn't quite as bad, since it's only one character. Although, I do prefer the 3e mechanics of ability damage to reduce the lethality of poison.

AFAICT - Ariosto is actually agreeing with me. If it says D&D on the cover, it's D&D. End of story.

 

[Lanefan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, doesn't a basilisk cause you to explode in fire, not turn to stone, in myth?

If so, then substitute "medusa" or "gorgon" or even "cockatrice" (though I'm not sure offhand if their stoning is done by gaze or by touch) in what I wrote above. My point still stands.

Lan-"medusa victims in a cart = the rolling stones"-efan

 

[Ariosto]

The fact that any AoE SoD effect will result in at least one death almost every time, barring something that specifically blocks the effect, makes it far too powerful.

It's hard to know just what game you're playing, but I gather that it is related to 3e.

First of all, your complaint has to do with treating the phenomenon as an "area of effect attack", like a fireball. (You do know, don't you, that in old D&D a fireball from a peer is effectively "save or die" on average to as many magic-users as one may have opportunity to fry?)

So, it is not "SoD" itself with which you take issue, but how it is applied in certain cases in your game.

In the 1st ed. Monster Manual, the basilisk "is able to turn to stone any fleshly creature which meets its glance." (In the original D&D set, it did likewise to "those whom it touches".)

Now, that is on the face of it (!) not an "area of effect attack". It is specifically a mutual line of sight attack. There is no suggestion whatsoever of multiple attacks. The basilisk's "NO. OF ATTACKS" entry reads "1".

Nor does it specifically entail a saving throw!

This is, basically, a "do and die" situation. The DM however is free (and encouraged, in the DMG) to give characters and monsters alike a chance (however slender) to avoid even apparently certain doom. The DMG also emphasizes the confused nature of a melee, the uncertainty of any undertaking -- even of choosing which foe to attack. Some sort of roll, whether "to hit" or "to save", nearly always applies.

Theoretically, more than one creature at once could choose to look the basilisk in the eyes, and it could take the latter but seconds to shift its own gaze to fulfill their effective self-destruction. Should such a case ever arise in the midst of a melee, I would be inclined to permit only two such attacks per round. However, I would not quibble if a DM ruled that any number can thus commit suicide in a single round.

More typically, people are trying not to meet the monster's gaze, while it is trying to maneuver so that they do so by accident. This -- like footwork and fencing with more conventional weapons -- is for game purposes usually most conveniently handled with a dice-roll.

The bottom line to which we return is that it is normally subject to the same conditions as any other attack: once per round, dependent on a roll for success. As with any other attack, there are prerequisites to make it possible in the first place, and factors that make it more difficult.

Obviously, someone who cannot see the basilisk at all simply cannot "meet its gaze". There is a spectrum of circumstances -- and thus of probabilities -- between that and being unable to avoid meeting the gaze.

The post grows long, so I postpone examination of the 3.5e rules. I hope it is clear that any rule that makes the basilisk's gaze an "area of effect attack" is a departure from the original game context.

 

[Ariosto]

Here is a passage from the 1st DMG that I have neglected on some number of occasions:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain Failure: As shown on the table, a 1 is ALWAYS a failure, regardless of magical modifiers to the contrary. However, as DM you may adjust such failures according to prevailing circumstances, although any adjudication which negates failure on a roll of 1 is not recommended at all. Another rule you may wish to consider is allowing a save (where applicable) on a natural 20, regardless of penalties.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The impression I get from this (in combination with other passages) is that a random element figures to a significant degree as essential to the game. Very little, it seems, is to be certain!

 

[BryonD]

If it says D&D on the cover, it's D&D. End of story.

I agree 100%. But this shallow brand name only position completely misses the point of the actual discussion. It isn't false, but the idea that it is helpful is simply amusing.

 

[Ariosto]

For those who may still honestly not understand, a fact of life is that different people have different preferences that exist independently of, and often prior to, the existence of any particular rules-book with "Dungeons & Dragons" (or anything else) on the cover.

Another fact of life is that the different games were designed by different people with different objectives corresponding to different preferences in the demographic of potential players/ DMs/ purchasers.

A fact of game design is that, however modular they may be, it is the interaction of the parts that makes the game. Changing one changes the effects of others.

A special problem in the case of RPGs is that many people have difficulty even recognizing as game-design elements at all things that can be much more fundamental than the "mechanical" details. The euphemism "play style" tends -- along with "fluff" -- to belittle all higher-order concerns as insignificant.

A special problem in the case of D&D is that many people mistake the brand name for the game. This is a problem because the publisher's business model is based on periodically selling a different game. It must be sufficiently different to warrant purchase by those who already have the last one but either (a) want something different or (b) want to "keep current". Even as it is really, in practice, quite important to some people that it is not so, they like paradoxically to insist that "the game remains the same".

The original generic "dungeon game" is a very broad basis for comparison by which one theoretically could say that, e.g., "AD&D is just another version of RuneQuest". This is in fact not how the line goes. Overwhelmingly, the favored claim is that something or other is (in all that "really" matters) just like the seminal Dungeons & Dragons game.

Like it or not, though, that game had certain characteristics. From Day One, quite a few people have in fact not liked those characteristics. They did not like the set-up. They did not like the goals. They did not like the plays. They did not like the penalties.

They might still like a "dungeon game", in a sense that can be as loose as liking the imagery that can as readily make the same "Euro-style" board game design either that or a "farming game" or pretty much any other kind of game that may be in vogue.

That sense does not go very far as a helpful distinction. The success of D&D led to a flood of games in one way or another "about" dwarves and hobbits stealing gold from dragons and other beasties in subterranean mazes.

When we get down to actual game design, that is so superficial that it can often be left to the art department. "File off the serial numbers" and you get ... well, an awful lot of what we have gotten over the past 36 years.

There are much more important questions as to what the game is about. For instance, is it about mapping a level in order to identify hazards and points-scoring objectives? Is it about going in, potentially over several tries, to bypass or beat the hazards and score the points? Is it about maximizing the points scored per "life", when loss of the life is an ever-present risk?

There is, from what I have seen and heard, an interesting phenomenon in the video-game world. A game such as Gauntlet, which is potentially endless, can still fascinate many players whose tastes in games developed in the 1980s. People without that background are much more likely to lose interest as soon as they realize that there is no final "boss" to beat, no way conclusively to "win the game".

There is a clear difference in context between the arcade, in which continued play requires either skill or cold cash, and the console or PC environment. There are doubtless other influences as well. To a certain extent, human beings tend to be naturally inclined to conservatism. A view that is popular has an inertia, a tendency to remain popular because it is popular.

When the makeup of the significant population changes, what is popular can change. When something that was formerly the province of a narrow demographic appeals to a different and larger demographic, the change can be both thorough and sudden. (The same can happen in reverse, which may have been one factor contributing to the decline of video arcades.)

At the same time, there can be a sense that some things are nonetheless "proper" because they are traditional. It may be hard for people to see how some things really are not working for them, because they have a vested interest in the prestige associated with traditions.

When a whole complex of concepts is associated with a high-value name, this can get very problematic. I expect that most readers can think of examples from the fields of politics and religion.

The bottom line for most people is that it is not the name but the qualities that determine whether the phenomenon is ultimately pleasing. Each of us desires certain ends, which may be opposed to another's desires. Different means are conducive to different ends.

 

[Hussar]

I agree 100%. But this shallow brand name only position completely misses the point of the actual discussion. It isn't false, but the idea that it is helpful is simply amusing.

For someone who complains often of me playing silly buggers with meaning, you're pretty quick to pull a quote out of context. I'm not the one saying that, someone else is.

But, this is futile. You're simply going to accuse me of deliberately misinterpreting yet again.

Ariosto - it's been so long since I've looked at a 1e Monster Manual that I'll take your word for how the mechanics work. I don't recall if a basilisk's gaze was an area of affect attack or not. If it wasn't, then I'm actually pretty happy with the way it is in that ruleset. It stops being an instant death sentence for one PC because it's not forcing saves on the entire group.

I believe I did say that before. The issue isn't so much SoD, it's the combination of SoD with an AoE attack. Even fireball isn't really SoD. A 5 die fireball averages 17 points of damage. Most 5th level characters (barring wizards) have more than 7 hit points (where the spell becomes an ACTUAL save or die). By and large, fireball isn't going to be save or die.

Now, to be fair, dragons breath is one where I don't mind it so much. But, then again, a dragon is one creature where I would agree that foreshadowing is a very good idea. A dragon encounter should always be an epic event IMO, and that gives the PC's a chance to prepare proper counters.

A medusa? Not so much.

 

[Ariosto]

I'm not the one saying that, someone else is.

Just what on Earth do you mean by that?

By and large, fireball isn't going to be save or die.

By and large, it is going to be save or die for m-us, doing on average one point per level more than they have -- or even more for full-fledged wizards (a hit dice's worth more per level over 11th with Supp. I or 1st ed. AD&D).

A 22nd level m-u with average rolls has just 38.5 h.p., and an average 22-dice fireball does 38.5 points of damage with successful save. Of course, in the unlikely event of such a neat knock out, one might have more interesting plans for one's rival than merely slitting his or her throat. Also of course, the merely average to start tend to be a bit more when (if) they manage to survive so long!

Meanwhile, however, a 26th-level fighter with average rolls has 100.5 h.p.. With a constitution of 15, that goes up to 109.5. With a failed save and 5 pips on each of those 22 damage dice, that's 110 points. That's probably also less likely than the fighter taking two fireballs and having 30+ points left. With a constitution of 16, he might well take three fireballs and be standing. With a constitution of 18, he might (42% chance of making 3 saves) be standing with 20+ points left.

Results certainly can depart from average. Once in a blue moon, a 22-dice lightning bolt does just 11 points -- or the maximum of 132.

 

[Nagol]

For someone who complains often of me playing silly buggers with meaning, you're pretty quick to pull a quote out of context. I'm not the one saying that, someone else is.

But, this is futile. You're simply going to accuse me of deliberately misinterpreting yet again.

Ariosto - it's been so long since I've looked at a 1e Monster Manual that I'll take your word for how the mechanics work. I don't recall if a basilisk's gaze was an area of affect attack or not. If it wasn't, then I'm actually pretty happy with the way it is in that ruleset. It stops being an instant death sentence for one PC because it's not forcing saves on the entire group.

I believe I did say that before. The issue isn't so much SoD, it's the combination of SoD with an AoE attack. Even fireball isn't really SoD. A 5 die fireball averages 17 points of damage. Most 5th level characters (barring wizards) have more than 7 hit points (where the spell becomes an ACTUAL save or die). By and large, fireball isn't going to be save or die.


A medusa? Not so much.

Actually, you died if the blow that dropped you took you below -3. A typical Magic-User had 5d4 hp -- 12.5 hp. An average fireball/lightning bolt killed you if you fail. Even thieves were touchy and typically on the edge of death.

 

[jdrakeh]

I am a DM. Yay for Save or Die. I find that the threat of instantaneous death helps keep adventurers on their toes. The key is to not use it often. Otherwise, the action slows to a complete stop as ultra-paranoid characters try to feel out every inch of a dungeon for traps.