Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[MrMyth]

Indeed.

Fair enough. I've given my evidence and quotes from the rules that prove my point. If you're willing to let my rebuttals stand without any counter response, I'm willing to let this tangent (save or) die.

Can we hear about how people dealt with the SoD situation in actual play or should we continue to discuss abstract rules and theory?

Here is one that comes to mind for me. A few years back, my friends was running an adventure in Ptolus. We were nearing the end of it, and were launching an attack on some evil guy's lair. Coming in through a side entrance, we ran into a guardian golem made out of tombstones. It wasn't intended to be a major challenge of any sort. But it landed a hit on a friend's character, and we discovered it had a Save or Die effect. Again, it was low CR compared to us, the CR was a trivial DC 14.

And my friend rolled a 1.

Years later, we still laugh about it. (And, well, largely did so at the time as well, since friendly mockery is how that group operates). But at the time, it also felt pretty obnoxious - we couldn't go back to get him raised without the bad guy completing his evil ritual (or whatever he was up to). So we trekked on without him, which meant he got to sit there through the rest of the session planning out his next character (since, at level 16 or so, cranking out a new character isn't all that simple.)

And the next week he came in with his new guy and we moved on, and all was well. But still. One ability, on a creature designed to be a speedbump, and one unlucky roll, meant he had to sit out the session.

Which sorta reinforces my main feelings about Save or Die - if they have to exist, they should at least be special. Something the epic villain or mythic creature, maybe. But random encounters across the board, dozens of spells of varying levels...? That's what I could do without.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, no, but the response seemed to have been that there was no acceptable scenario in which the rogue could look into the room and meet the Bodak's gaze while hidden. And the claim was, specifically, that because the rogue was hidden, the Bodak was likely looking away from it.

That, at least, is correct, or would be if you changed "the Bodak was likely looking away from it" to "the Bodak was ver, very likely not looking directly at it".

The message people seemed to be saying was that a DM was at fault for any scenario in which a hidden rogue could meet the Bodak's gaze, regardless of how appropriate it might be or not.

No.

No one is arguing "regardless of how appropriate it might be or not". The argument is that it is not appropriate in the example given. This is, once again, your attempt to alter someone's argument to your benefit.

What is argued is that the DM is at fault if, given multiple possible interpretations, he chooses the interpretation that most screws the players. The DM is even more at fault if the circumstances make that interpretation far less likely than the one chosen.

If the DM does this occasionally, this is a weakness in his DMing (which happens, and is okay, but one should try to learn from one's failings). regularly, the DM is a poor DM.

Shipwrecks can happen. Sometimes, shipwrecks are appropriate. Arbitrarily making a shipwreck happen despite it being extremely unlikely is bad DMing. Arbitrarily making a shipwreck happen despite it being extremely unlikely every time the PCs get on a ship is a likely indicator of a bad DM. Unless one of the PCs is Groo, and Ruferto isn't with him.

The whole argument begs the question, though, why you think this isn't bad DMing.....?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Fair enough. I've given my evidence and quotes from the rules that prove my point. If you're willing to let my rebuttals stand without any counter response, I'm willing to let this tangent (save or) die.

Sorry, but is this actually about twisting people's arguments until they get tired of clarifying, and then you declare yourself the winner? Really?

Okay. You've slaughtered every straw man you've raised. You win.

 

[MrMyth]

Sorry, but is this actually about twisting people's arguments until they get tired of clarifying, and then you declare yourself the winner? Really?

Er... no? The main reason I continued this line was that you had declared certain things to be by the RAW, when they were not. I don't think this was about getting tired of clarifying - I had provided direct quotes from the rules that specifically contradicted the claims you were making. I took your response to mean that you were conceding that point.

If that isn't the case... well, I'll lay out once more the main points of the argument if you want to respond to them:

Claim: If you are hidden, it means the opponent is most likely looking in another direction.

Rebuttal: No, since if this was true, you could automatically spot a hidden figure by declaring that you are looking at the shadows in which they are hiding - which is not the case. Instead, even if you look at their hiding spot, you make a Spot check opposed by their Hide check, and if you fail, you do not see them unless you in some fashion remove or negate their concealment or cover.


Claim: A gaze attack requires actively meeting the gaze of the creature, not simply viewing its eyes.

Rebuttal: No, a gaze attack simply requires viewing its eyes, based on the opening line of the gaze attack entry in the monster manual, "A gaze attack takes effect when opponents look at the creature's eyes."

 

[MrMyth]

What is argued is that the DM is at fault if, given multiple possible interpretations, he chooses the interpretation that most screws the players. The DM is even more at fault if the circumstances make that interpretation far less likely than the one chosen.

And this is the part where things are strange to me. Earlier you talk about wanting things to have logical consistency, and that a DM shouldn't be softballing SoD encounters. Now you seem to be saying the opposite - that a DM is at fault if he has a SoD monster and allows it to affect a PC. That when deciding how events happen, he should choose the scenario which is least harmful to the PCs, rather than basing it on what seems logical in the scenario itself.

In this case, a PC looks into a room in which there is a Bodak, and one which it is likely will have its features visible to them.

To confirm, do you feel the appropriate thing to do in this instance would be for the DM to decide that the Bodak happened to be looking away at that very moment, when there was no logical reason for it to do so?

The whole argument begs the question, though, why you think this isn't bad DMing.....?

Because the only element that made this a bad situation was the SoD itself. A rogue sneaks up to a cabin and looks inside. A bodak is in the room, set there to guard the place. It was in a position where its features are visible to the rogue. The DM could arbitrarily decide it is looking away, but there is no reason for that to be the case. Thus, the rogue can see its features, and upon looking at its evil eyes, the rogue dies.

Let's switch the Bodak with someone else, and run this scenario again.

A rogue sneaks up to a cabin and looks inside. Jack the Fighter is in the room, set there to guard the place. He is in a position where his features are visible to the rogue. The DM could arbitrarily decide he is looking away, but there is no reason for that to be the case. Thus, the rogue can see his features, and identify who he is, and return with that information for his friends.

The only part that is a problem is the rogue dying. Nothing else about either above scenario seems unreasonable. Saying that it is possible to spy upon someone from hiding, and see their features, seems likely in any number of circumstances. Declaring that the DM should have the Bodak looking away, not because it makes sense, but because doing otherwise is 'screwing the PCs' seems to be saying that the default is for a DM to use SoD monsters, but them softball them as much as possible.