Save or Die: Yea or Nay?

[billd91]

Because, mathematically speaking, save or die is very rarely just save or die, it's usually just die. An unprepared party of five PC's meets a medusa has to make five saving throws, possibly ten saving throws if there is a surprise round, before their first action. The chances that someone will fail that saving throw is too great IMO.

If the chance of failing the save is even 25%, odds say that someone is going to die in the first round if they are caught unprepared.

That is too powerful of an ability. Never mind the skyrocketing odds of failure if you add a second or (shudder) a third SoD effect to the same encounter.

To me, this is the whole problem in a nutshell.

I find this line of analysis problematic. If you look at the party as a whole, the risk that someone will die from a SoD depends on how big the party is. And while the SoD ability may cause more casualties, the larger number of party members significantly reduces the overall risk of the monster to the party. So the analysis is ultimately confused and, I think, contradictory.

 

[Ariosto]

Suggesting that, if the game you enjoy has an element you dislike, the best course of action is to leave the game ...

Vanna, I'd like to buy some relevance.

Seriously, neither has BryonD nor have I "suggested" any such thing!

The fact of the matter is that sweeping differences from the old game are already -- in 3e -- part of the context in which the issue of "SoD" is being considered.

It is not surprising that details of the S have given way in discussion to the place of D, and D itself to sundry inconveniences from personal petrification to rusting of gear and beyond.

"The game" is a whole process. There are many different Poker games, so we need to know which one we are supposed to be playing. However, there are shared basic principles. If you don't like those, then anything someone who does thinks is worth calling Poker is probably not for you. The same holds for Chess -- and Chess is not Poker, nor Poker Chess.

The Winner's Rule #1 is to Know the Victory Conditions. Whatever they are, a winning strategy is directed toward them.

A game designer likewise needs first to have objectives for the design to implement. A lot depends on whether the players have the same objectives.

Consider: I have seen a lot of talk about how spell-casters are "broken" in 3e. I certainly think they get huge concessions in the rules, which must be telling in any case (although there may also be some offsetting factors).

However, one problem is not (as far as I recall) in "the rules", in the sense of the little fiddly situation-specific bits. It's in the larger context, which may popularly have been changed significantly not just from the original game -- the source of the "SoD" elements -- but maybe even from what the 3e designers intended.

Although the 3e rules give PCs maximum h.p. at first level, and another hit dice each and every level, they still give m-us (even the lowliest now styled "wizards") only a four-sided dice.

One might well wonder why that might be. Why does a wizard get only d4, while a fighter gets d10? What purpose does it serve? What is the anticipated result?

(Here's a hint: In AD&D, and I think also in 3e, not only is a fire ball or lightning bolt from a peer on average "save or die" to an m-u, but even a successful save means losing on average 70% of full hit points. Meanwhile, the average fighter -- without a constitution bonus -- is still standing unless (a) the save fails and (b) the damage dice come up at least half 6, the rest 5. A failed save costs the fighter on average only 64%. The fighter is then just half a point per level behind a full-strength m-u.)

In the old game, the anticipated result is that magic-users die like flies.

If that were happening in 3e, then it would be even more significant. In AD&D, the x.p. to get an m-u from 1st to 6th get a fighter from 6th to 7th. In 3e, by the time a replacement wizard gets to 6th, the fighter will (with the same x.p.) be 8th.

Go back Jack, do it again, and the fighter is 10th vs. the wizard's 6th.

At the very least, the 3e resurrection spell calls for loss of a level (or 2 points of constitution if 1st level).

No doubt that difference in hit dice is having that effect in some 3e campaigns, but it is not what I have seen or heard about! No, the "gentlemen's agreement" that seems usually to apply is ... basically just the way the designers of 4e say that their game actually works best in a lot of ways.

Guess what else the 4e guys figured out? If you turn the wizard into more of a warrior, then -- if you really want the kind of balance they wanted -- either (a) you make the wizard less of a magician or (b) you make the fighter more of a magician or (c) a bit of each.

They don't use hit dice, but give set numbers of points -- and lots of 'em. Again, that's not just an accident. It serves purposes.

If you are not on board with the purposes, then the better they are served the worse the design will serve you.

 

[Imaginary Number]

There are people who believe that the game has changed in a fundamental way, not only in rules but in spirit, from its inception to the current edition. To those people, the claim that this new thing (which is found undesireable) "remains the same" as the old (which is enjoyed) is a form of slander.

There are also people who believe that the game has not changed in a fundamental way, neither in rules nor in spirit, from its inception to the current edition. And to those people, the claim that the new thing is equivalent to the old thing in many ways seems obvious, and they can't figure out how something as strongly worded as "slander" can work its way into the discourse. (YMMV, of course.)

In any event, I've seen people on this site, including me, go around this bend more than a few times before, and I'm not inclined to keep riding on old hobbyhorses. For the record, I'm primarily a DM and a fan of the 4e SSSorD mechanic; I like the idea of cascading negative consequences rather than a simple binary positive/negative resolution when the PCs encounter something with that sort of attack.

 

[Hussar]

/snip - I love it when we all agree.



Here is where I disagree. A well-designed monster is one that has a place in D&D, one with lore, one with the information I want to give it a footprint in a world with as much verisimilitude as I can give it, fantastic abilities and all. I don't just "pick up and drop into" my game any old critter. It's there for a reason and has an effect on the world around it... at least as much as I can manage it.

I totally accept that this is a playstyle thing. I've long maintained a stance that strongly rejects a lot of the world-building elements that some people really appreaciate. I understand that these are two very different approaches. To me, the "place in D&D" is a meaningless concept since my campaign worlds are always different and generally not so broadly integrated as some people's.

Different strokes and all that. For me, I look at the ease in which I can drag and drop a critter and judge the critter based on that. The easier it is, the better I think it is. The more I have to manipulate the scenario, or engineer specific circimstances, the worse I judge a creature.

But, that's totally my view on it and should not be seen as a blanket judgement at all.

I find this line of analysis problematic. If you look at the party as a whole, the risk that someone will die from a SoD depends on how big the party is. And while the SoD ability may cause more casualties, the larger number of party members significantly reduces the overall risk of the monster to the party. So the analysis is ultimately confused and, I think, contradictory.

Actually, that's not true. The larger the party is the more deadly a SoD creature becomes. If you have 1 PC with a 50/50 save, there's a 50/50 chance of death. If you have 4 PC's with a 50/50 save, odds say two should die in the first round.

That's one of my big beefs with these abilities. They actually become MORE deadly the larger the party is. My current group has 6 PC's, soon to be 7. A SoD creature with a gaze attack is pretty much an instant death sentence for one PC in the first round.

To me, it just plays silly buggers with the math of the game.

 

[Hussar]

There are also people who believe that the game has not changed in a fundamental way, neither in rules nor in spirit, from its inception to the current edition. And to those people, the claim that the new thing is equivalent to the old thing in many ways seems obvious, and they can't figure out how something as strongly worded as "slander" can work its way into the discourse. (YMMV, of course.)

/snip.

This I would actually disagree with. I do think that the game has changed in a number of fundamental ways mechanically. I'm not really sure how you could claim that it hasn't. The addition and subtraction of so many systems makes for some pretty different games, mechanically.

OTOH, I do think that the spirit has not changed all that much. Which tends to get me into trouble sometimes. I fell as I watch the WOTC gaming podcasts or whatnot, that the spirit of the game isn't all that different. It's most certainly D&D. It might emphasize different elements of the game, but, it's all D&D to me.

Then again, I tend to be a pretty big tent kind of guy. I don't mind including Pathfinder into D&D either. If Moldvay Basic, 2e with Skills and Powers, and 3.5e using Unearthed Arcana and Tome of Magic are all considered D&D, I have no problems throwing 4e into the same pot.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I haven't voted, because there isn't an option for me. As a DM and a player, I want save or die.

Ditto for me as well.

 

[Lanefan]

This I would actually disagree with. I do think that the game has changed in a number of fundamental ways mechanically. I'm not really sure how you could claim that it hasn't. The addition and subtraction of so many systems makes for some pretty different games, mechanically.

Agreed.

OTOH, I do think that the spirit has not changed all that much. Which tends to get me into trouble sometimes. I fell as I watch the WOTC gaming podcasts or whatnot, that the spirit of the game isn't all that different. It's most certainly D&D. It might emphasize different elements of the game, but, it's all D&D to me.

However, one could argue - and probably successfully - that the emphasis on different elements changes the focus of the game and with it, the spirit. In very broad-brush strokes, for example, 2e focused on story while 3e focused on math and 4e focused on balance; and that shifting focus does change the spirit...for better or worse.

Then again, I tend to be a pretty big tent kind of guy. I don't mind including Pathfinder into D&D either. If Moldvay Basic, 2e with Skills and Powers, and 3.5e using Unearthed Arcana and Tome of Magic are all considered D&D, I have no problems throwing 4e into the same pot.

OK, now they're all in the same pot turn it up to 'boil' for a few hours, will ya? I wanna see what emerges when they've all been melted together.

Lan-"but it'll still need salt"-efan

 

[Hussar]

Lanefan - I'd certainly agree that the focus is different in different editions. We've gone from heavy reliance on the dungeon crawl to a more "story" based campaign, then "back to the dungeon" and now something that plays mix and match with both. I'm not sure if that's really changing the "spirit" all that much. That's a pretty nebulous concept.

I look at it this way, I could run Keep on the Borderlands in any edition and it's not going to drastically change - you have a rag tag band of misfits going somewhere dangerous to kill stuff and take their treasure. The exact mechanics don't really faze me all that much.

OTOH, I do completely recognize the fact that for some people, the devil is in the details. Taking out the Dwarf and adding in a Dragonborn fighter results in a completely different game for some people. It doesn't for me.

 

[Ariosto]

That's one of my big beefs with these abilities. They actually become MORE deadly the larger the party is.

Hussar's Infinite Attacks (Ex)
This is a feature of the "Hussar's" template. This ability applies only to attacks that permit a saving throw. It enables the creature to use each such attack simultaneously on every creature the DM chooses. Factors that would normally prohibit so many attacks, such as rate of fire, range, visibility, cover, facing, arc of fire, blast radius, etc., are not considered.

The Hussar's Beholder would be feared throughout the known universe, had it not exterminated all other life in the known universe in the first 48 seconds of its existence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But seriously ... I think you and billd91 have your eyes here on different games.

In your game, it is in the first place the rule, and in the second place a big deal, that a party of 8 will take twice the casualties as a party of 4.

In billd91's game, maybe the party of 4 takes 2, and the party of 8 takes just the 1 the other guys suffered initially -- before more than twice the firepower finishes the foe so much more quickly.

Maybe it remains true that the bigger party loses 4, but that is not a big deal next to the fact that 4 are still twice as strong as 2 (unless you're doing this wacky "nothing but more casualties" routine routinely).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I think that D&D is pretty basically predicated on players having more control over what they do than had the fellows in the trenches in World War One. It ought to be possible to come up with better tactics than "everyone line up to get mowed down", and players ought to be free to implement them.

 

[El Mahdi]

...OK, now they're all in the same pot turn it up to 'boil' for a few hours, will ya? I wanna see what emerges when they've all been melted together.

Lan-"but it'll still need salt"-efan

It's kind of like Mongolian BBQ. Pick the parts you want, throw em' together, and see what comes out. But yeah, it will still need salt...you always have to season to taste!