Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[pemerton]

Not really surprising considering how close Rolemaster and D&D are as games.

Except the one part where they differ is in ease of PC-creation - RM is much worse in this respect compared to any version of D&D except perhaps 3E - and so there really is no game-design excuse for using save-or-die as a mechanic.

HARP, which in many repsects is RM light, avoids save-or-die (and death crit) issues both by toning down many magical effects, and by implementing a Fate Point system.

An efficient and effective player, who probably already has a set of interesting character ideas he wants to try and simply had to pick one for the game in the first place, can crank out a character in virtually any game in a short time.

This isn't true for Rolemaster. Very experienced, efficient, effective RM players who have a good idea of the PC they want to play can easily take 3 or more hours to produce a mid- to high level RM PC.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I get the very strong impression that Hussar is talking about 3E, and/or about common ways of running 2nd ed AD&D, in which (i) death is at -10, and (ii) it is pretty standard to run gaze attacks as a type of area attack.

I think I agree with a fair bit of what Ariosto is saying - namely, that pre-2nd ed versions of D&D presupposed quick and failry frequent generation of PCs, and that keeping parts of the game system in 3E (like save-or-die) while changing other parts (quick PC creation, hp totals, damage caps etc) can reduce the game's ability to provide satisfactory play to many players - both those looking for old-style play and those looking for story/PC-intensive play.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Huh. Learn something new every day. Thought you could go to -9 in 1e too. We always played that way. Cool. I was just mentioning in another thread that I try to avoid talking about 1e mechanics cos I just don't know them that well.

The way I see this, when faced with a SoD AOE ability, there are three approaches being talked about here:

1. Ignore it. Let the dice fall where they may. If half the party dies, so be it. In my mind, this is an approach that works best with a system with very fast character generation and/or playing multiple PC's.

2. Deal with it "in world". Try to ameliorate the lethality of the encounter by dropping lots of information on the players so that they have ample opportunity to prepare for the encounter.

3. Deal with it mechanically. Ameliorate the lethality of the encounter by reducing the lethality of the ability. Obviously, this is my option of choice.

At the end of the day, the option you choose should best fit with how your campaign works. I dislike option 1 because I've found that frequent character death tends to reduce the effort players put into their characters. I dislike option 2 because I find it too limiting. Sometimes I want to be able to ambush the party with a bodak, but, as it's written in 3e, that's just too lethal for me.

So, I go with option 3, because it fits best with me. I don't see D&D as a game for recreating mythology, so, playing silly buggers with a medusa's gaze doesn't faze me in the slightest. I've already accepted that a medusa is not The Medusa of legend, so, taking a couple of steps further doesn't bother me.

Obviously opinions vary on this.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

1. Ignore it. Let the dice fall where they may. If half the party dies, so be it. In my mind, this is an approach that works best with a system with very fast character generation and/or playing multiple PC's.

2. Deal with it "in world". Try to ameliorate the lethality of the encounter by dropping lots of information on the players so that they have ample opportunity to prepare for the encounter.

3. Deal with it mechanically. Ameliorate the lethality of the encounter by reducing the lethality of the ability. Obviously, this is my option of choice.

A nice summary list.

Just a quibble, though: you've omitted the second part of item 2. You've mentioned the in-world approach of warning players. But there is also item 2.b (my preferred approach) which is "Run the SoD monsters interestingly, as if they are real creatures with motives and/or tactics that don't always involve the SoD effect as their first attack." Just as in real life not every poisonous creature strikes immediately, so too not every SoD-capable creature uses its SoD effect at the drop of a hat.

Basilisks don't eat stone, and not every medusa is a statue collector.

Obviously opinions vary on this.

But of course, yes. This.

 

[Ariosto]

Thought you could go to -9 in 1e too.

Sometimes you can. It depends on how you get there.

With the less generous option, a blow that takes you below 0 kills you. Brought to exactly 0, you are unconscious and dying, losing 1 point per round until attended to.

It is the more generous option that extends the "buffer" to negative 3. With that option, a creature with just 1 hit point has only a 50% chance of immediate death if hit for 1d8 damage.

In either case, a second blow certainly kills the hapless victim. So does "bleeding" to -10.

 

[Ariosto]

Sometimes I want to be able to ambush the party with a bodak, but, as it's written in 3e, that's just too lethal for me.

You might try leaving out the third paragraph beneath the "Gaze Attacks" heading at 3.5 DMG p. 294:

"Each character within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw (which can be a Fortitude or Will save) each round at the beginning of his turn."

That leaves the provision, in the sixth paragraph, to use the gaze as an attack action.

 

[Lanefan]

Huh. Learn something new every day. Thought you could go to -9 in 1e too.

I *think* death at -10 was an option presented in an early Dragon mag. article - certainly long before Unearthed Arcana came out (or is it even presented as an option as early as the 1e DMG?). I know we've played it that way since about the end of the last ice age; and the rule came from somewhere, we didn't completely dream it up.

Lan-"sometimes a character can be well above -10 and still die, by a variety of means..."-efan

 

[Hussar]

You might try leaving out the third paragraph beneath the "Gaze Attacks" heading at 3.5 DMG p. 294:

"Each character within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw (which can be a Fortitude or Will save) each round at the beginning of his turn."

That leaves the provision, in the sixth paragraph, to use the gaze as an attack action.

Funnily enough, this is how 4e handles it. A gaze attack has to "hit" a particular defense before the saving throws kick in. Suits my purposes rather well. And, apparently, is something that was done back in the day as well.

Basilisks don't eat stone, and not every medusa is a statue collector.

Well, basilisks aren't exactly the sharpest pencil in the box. I'm not really sure if they'd have the tactical werewithal to turn off their gaze. But, I do get your point.

Although, to be fair, I don't really have a problem with the idea of Basilisks eating stone.

 

[Ariosto]

or is it even presented as an option as early as the 1e DMG?

What I paraphrased in post #425 above is from 1st DMG p. 82, "Zero Hit Points".

The big difference from 3e is that a single blow can kill immediately if it takes you to -1 (or -4, as the case may be), or if you are already at 0 or in negative points.

In 3e, I think it is only reduction to -10 that kills. That means a coup de grace can easily take a couple or more hits.

In AD&D, "Any character brought to 0 (or fewer) hit points and then revived will remain in coma for 1-6 turns. Thereafter, he or she must rest for a full week, minimum." So, there's no popping back into the fight just because potions or cure spells have equipped you with hit points. A heal spell removes the prohibition of vigorous activity.

Further, "If any creature reaches a state of -6 or greater negative points before being revived, this could indicate scarring or the loss of some member."

In the original D&D set, positive hit points alone indicate "the number of points of damage the character could sustain before death. Whether sustaining accumulative hits will otherwise affect a character is left to the discretion of the referee."

 

[Aus_Snow]

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.

Hehe. Oh yeah, been there. As a player, I might add.

It was actually a (sorta peculiar. . .) kind of fun all its own, if I recall 100% correctly. Checking for every [known] possible kind of freakin' trap/trick/whatever, nearly every damn step. Heh. Different, I'll give it that. The equipment lists alone were rather novel. . .