Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[Ariosto]

*shrug* Or we could have basilisks that work a bit differently. There are options besides "instant petrification on a single die roll" and "no petrification at all."

Sure, there's "advance 1-6 spaces and take a gumdrop, then be 'petrified' until your next move".

You and I can do absolutely whatever we please as GMs.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

No matter what encounter you have, I think that the players should be able to look back at what came before (with 20/20 hindsight) and say, "Yeah, we coulda/shoulda seen that coming." The degree to which this is true increases in proportion to the "footprint" of the creature(s) encountered.

And expecting that level of common sense, IMHO, doesn't put too great a burden on the GM.....Although it should, perhaps, be made explicit in the GM's advice.


RC

No one is saying this. What people are saying is that there are ways to mitigate SoD, including PCs being prepared for the eventuality (either because they know there's a bodak in the dungeon, or because they have heard tell bodaks sometimes inhabit dungeons). The only one that is suggesting that SoD can only occur if the DM has completely briefed the players beforehand is you.

It's D&D. Unless a house rule or group decision says otherwise, it can be assumed there will be SoD attacks -- poisons, death gazes and everything in between. Players that for some reason refuse to acknowledge the possibility may find themselves quite put out when they lose a beloved character for want of a relatively cheap and easy protection like anti-toxin or potions of death ward.

I don't know about anyone else Reynard, but it certainly looks like RavenCrowking is advocating that players should ALWAYS have had the opportunity to know that there was a SoD encounter and ALWAYS have sufficient forewarning to be able to be prepared.

To me, that's the rub. Even if I absolutely know that there is a basilisk in that there dungeon, how do I prepare for it in every single instance? Enter every room with a mirror, despite the fact that I give up surprise against the twenty other encounters on the off chance that the rumour I heard in a tavern is true?

Heck, smart humanoids will spread rumours of basilisks and other SoD creatures about every lair if that were true. It's the best tactical defence you could have. Slows down any invasion to a crawl.

But, some form of mitigation is certainly very typical.
If the monsters don't work the way they are supposed to, then they are flat out wrong. As far as I am concerned, if a creature slows you, it isn't a medusa. It may be a fun monster. But it ain't medusa and if you say it is, I consider you flat wrong.

Really? Typical? I posted four or five different modules with SoD monsters with no forewarning. Even the medusa in Keep on the Borderlands has no forewarning - she's a trap monster. Mitigation might happen, I don't deny that - how many basilisks have scrolls of Stone to Flesh in their treasure hordes after all. But, just because you happen to interpret a particular creature a certain way does not make anyone else wrong. It just means that you prefer a certain interpretation.

Since, in the Medusa myth, we never actually SEE anyone being turned to stone, what proof do you have that you are not slowed first. All we know is that if you see a gorgon, you are turned to stone. Having it occur over 18 seconds instead of instantly isn't exactly shredding the story canon.

 

[Doug McCrae]

SoDs are the non-hit point style of D&D combat. In a sense they are, like criticals, more realistic, because hit points are very unrealistic.

Setting aside the D, and concentrating on the SoD, it's an issue of the swinginess of combat. SoDs are, like critical hits, and high damage attacks in general, very swingy. Gygax's argument against critical hits in the 1e DMG, that they remove the player's capacity to make an informed decision, applies also to SoDs.

Pre-3e has a mix of swingy (SoD, low level combat, high level combat) and non-swingy (mid-level). 3e combat is very swingy with crits, SoDs and high damage attacks. If a grappling monster gets you, you're toast. Unless you had a Freedom of Movement in which case you're fine. Winning initiative is very important. It's very binary. Swingy and binary are, I think, the same concept. 4e goes the opposite direction from 3e and removes all swinginess. No SoDs, damage is low compared to hit points. You always die slow. You see it coming.

Swingy has its advantages. I've enjoyed, as a player, my PC's life depending on a single die roll. It's exciting. Swingy combats are less predictable, more thrilling. But PCs will die more often. As has been said upthread, that's fine if you have measures in place to deal - multiple PCs and/or henchmen, quick char gen, raise dead, etc.

 

[SteveC]

It isn't the number of die rolls, it's the ability of the party to make a difference, that matters to me.

In 4e, those three saves? Your allies can rush up and give you extra chances to succeed, they can pull you out of danger, they can do all sorts of things to make you not die.

With just one save you either die, or you don't.

I'd echo this. I think putting characters in danger raises the tension of a battle, and the "ticking bomb" of getting to them before something bad happens makes things more dramatic and more interesting. When a 4E Medusa starts turning you to stone the question for the group becomes "how are we going to stop this," in 3X, unless the right spells are available, you sit the battle out and you're done.

I think for the most part, the "three strikes rule" works pretty well. What it does for me is to introduce the tension of imminent death, while still giving people the ability to do something about it... to be a hero (again, all in my opinion, etc...).

 

[BryonD]

Really? Typical? I posted four or five different modules with SoD monsters with no forewarning. Even the medusa in Keep on the Borderlands has no forewarning - she's a trap monster.

I have already readily agreed that the history of D&D includes "gotcha" as a legacy. And that it was much more prominent in early D&D. Also, I still say there is nothing wrong with it as a style of play.

But pointing out examples that clearly fall under the historic example does nothing to undermine my point.

Since, in the Medusa myth, we never actually SEE anyone being turned to stone, what proof do you have that you are not slowed first. All we know is that if you see a gorgon, you are turned to stone. Having it occur over 18 seconds instead of instantly isn't exactly shredding the story canon.

Ok, so as long as every 4e medusa-slowed character is certain to turn to stone within 18 seconds and no further saves or intervention can change that, then I'm completely with you.
*IF* slowed *THEN* you WILL be stone in a matter of seconds.

Of course, that isn't how it works in 4E and that isn't remotely what the defense of the 4e approach is advocating. So in real terms this contribution to the discussion is just disingenuous and less than worthless.

 

[BryonD]

I'd echo this. I think putting characters in danger raises the tension of a battle, and the "ticking bomb" of getting to them before something bad happens makes things more dramatic and more interesting. When a 4E Medusa starts turning you to stone the question for the group becomes "how are we going to stop this," in 3X, unless the right spells are available, you sit the battle out and you're done.

I think for the most part, the "three strikes rule" works pretty well. What it does for me is to introduce the tension of imminent death, while still giving people the ability to do something about it... to be a hero (again, all in my opinion, etc...).

I'll repeat, I buy 100% that this works great as a tactical and gamist device. If that is what you are seeking, then jackpot.

But if "works pretty well" is remotely in the realm of "this recreates Medusa as presented in myth", then it isn't anywhere close.

I'm not saying one is right and the other is badwrongfun. But there are different approaches.

Also, I personally reject the truth in "you sit the battle out and you're done". The CHARACTER is done. If the player is still there and having fun, then the "you" is completely misplaced. And speaking as a killer DM, I never have players walk away from the table and rarely could an otherwise unaware third party observer tell which players had dead characters on casual inspection.

Again, for a tactical battlegame with winning and losing, then it is a different matter.

 

[Ariosto]

I don't know about anyone else Reynard, but it certainly looks like RavenCrowking is advocating that players should ALWAYS have had the opportunity to know that there was a SoD encounter and ALWAYS have sufficient forewarning to be able to be prepared.

In old D&D, as in most other games of my acquaintance and as in life, opportunity to investigate and learn is not at all the same thing as automatically being forearmed.

You, and MrMyth, and I think others, seem to expect all necessary intelligence to be delivered to you by parcel post without your having to lift a finger or a gray cell. Moreover, you seem to expect absolute assurances in a game that involves chance.

To me, that's the rub. Even if I absolutely know that there is a basilisk in that there dungeon, how do I prepare for it in every single instance?

Even if you absolutely know that there is a knight at KB3, how do you prepare for it in every single instance?

That's a different game. It is not one of hidden information, other than what the opponent's plans may be. It does not involve any tosses of the dice.

And yet, the answer to your question is the same:

It's your move. It's up to you!

That's what the game is. If you don't like it, then there are plenty of other pastimes.

 

[Ariosto]

Originally Posted by BryonD
But, some form of mitigation is certainly very typical.

Really? Typical? I posted four or five different modules with SoD monsters with no forewarning. Even the medusa in Keep on the Borderlands has no forewarning - she's a trap monster. Mitigation might happen, I don't deny that - how many basilisks have scrolls of Stone to Flesh in their treasure hordes after all.

Really? Mitigation might happen? Something here is typical, all right.

She does, in fact, have a special elixir*, a potion of stone to flesh in a small vial, enough liquid to turn six persons, who have been turned to stone, back to normal, but she does not intend to give it away.

Now, it is pretty unlikely that anyone just barging in is not going to look at her -- which is just what the "save" is for. There is a rumor at the Keep that sets up this "trap".

But of course the dashing and daring light cavalry is always in first, especially with the ladies. As the saying has it, "a hussar who is not dead by 30 is a [gold bricker]." The rest of us are thereby prepared not to get suckered when we find the treasure of Tsojcanth.

Or by little grannies bearing lovely ripe apples, for that matter. Or little bedridden grannies with big eyes. Or ... but so it goes. Fantasyland is tough!

Now, an evil cleric might not be above setting actual traps for intruders. That might occur to people, and most such things are a lot more final than getting petrified.

Such, as, oh ... death, maybe? Would you prefer a crossbow bolt in your guts?

 

[BryonD]

You, and MrMyth, and I think others, seem to expect all necessary intelligence to be delivered to you by parcel post without your having to lift a finger or a gray cell. Moreover, you seem to expect absolute assurances in a game that involves chance.

Hussar likes to restate people's positions for them and turn preferences or tendencies into things like "ALWAYS", in all caps, or removing the obvious context, such as the misrepresentation of my complaint against slowing.

It is clear that RC meant exactly this kind of opportunity for players (or characters if you prefer) to take responsibility for their destiny.

 

[BryonD]

Pre-3e has a mix of swingy (SoD, low level combat, high level combat) and non-swingy (mid-level). 3e combat is very swingy with crits, SoDs and high damage attacks.

Remember the old 3.0 default orc with his greataxe? If an orc straight out of the MM rolled a 20, then you were likely dead up through level 3 or 4 (depending on your class). I kinda liked that. The idea of even low level characters having some durability is cool. But the threat of just getting caved in by a big orc is also fitting at low levels.

In PF they have added cyclops with a 1/day auto 20, and they wield large great axes, it is pretty much an auto 50+ hp damage for one swing a day. IMO, THAT is a poorly designed mechanic. It is not bad because it can kill, but because it doesn't provide any narrative compensation and even the roll is removed. Granted the crit must be confirmed. But the fun isn't there. An ettin just took off a PC's head a session ago and that was fun. But ettin's don't get the free blast. I've house-ruled the cyclops to an autohit with no crits on the attack that uses the ability. That works better for me.

Now, if cyclops stories featured an ability to supernaturally cleave heads routinely, then my opinion would certainly change. And the CR would change as well.

Swingy has its advantages. I've enjoyed, as a player, my PC's life depending on a single die roll. It's exciting. Swingy combats are less predictable, more thrilling. But PCs will die more often. As has been said upthread, that's fine if you have measures in place to deal - multiple PCs and/or henchmen, quick char gen, raise dead, etc.

Yep.

Or, if you find the simulation side fundamental to the enjoyment, then that also makes it more than fine. (Just to supplement your list)