NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5277954" data-attributes="member: 61155">Three points, here.  First off, I think that is distorting the situation. The DM didn't have a Bodak pop up in the middle of the party and force a save or die. The DM went looking for some level appropriate undead. The Bodak was at the right level, so was placed in a cabin to guard some magical treasure.  Secondly... there is nothing in the rules indicating Save or Die enemies are outlawed on wandering encounter tables. Again, if a DM is looking for some undead enemies for a region in a certain level range, it seems fitting for Bodaks to end up there.  Finally - again, Bodak's aren't the only Save or Die enemy out there. The category includes various other creatures, including potentially something as simple as poisonous snakes, along with all sorts of spellcasters.  There are many situations where PCs might end up against these opponents without having advance warning or notification.  What people seem to be saying is that Save or Die effects are basically outside the normal rules. That the DM is a bad DM if they use them without taking extra precautions. But there isn't anything in the rules to indicate this. You know what we have instead? A CR system, at least in 3rd Edition. Which said the Bodak was as appropriate an encounter as a Stone Giant. Which said that a 7th level Monk is as appropriate as a 7th level Wizard. There is nothing to indicate some of these need to be treated differently, or that I can only use spellcasters if I give the PCs advance notice that the spellcaster has Save or Die effects.  We've even got creatures that outright contradict this - what if an Assassin is hunting a PC? By their very nature, they are likely to both strike from surprise, and begin with a death attack - and yeah, this is the sort of 'gotcha' experience that people don't want from a good DM. At the same time, is the only option to just remove that scenario entirely from the game?  People have put the blame on the DM (either for not giving advance warning) or on the PCs (for undertaking some form of action that led to an assassin coming after them). And I just don't think that's reasonable.  As a note: I've mentioned before that my personal preference would be for there to be a section of optional house rules on using Save or Die effects that includes just this sort of advice and guidance. But that isn't what we've had in the past, and so I am focused on Save or Die as it is presented in the rules - something scattered across all sorts of enemies and spells, as just another power creatures get.  The comments I keep seeing are that "If you put in the SoD critters with no way for the PCs to live except to make their save, you've made a DMing mistake" - but the purpose of the SoD effects, as presented in the rules themselves, isn't to force PCs to take precautions against it. The purpose, as presented, is to kill the PCs.  Basically, are we saying that the only legitimate way to fight a Bodak is to get warned in advance, and then fight it with your eyes closed? Or, more likely, to have the Cleric cast Death Ward and render the encounter trivial? Is the only way to fight a Wizard to divine his spellbook in advance, and load up on Rings of Counterspell? Or, if he has several spells that do the job, do you enter the fight ready to counter his signature spell, or disrupt his spellcasting - and just hope he doesn't win Initiative and kill someone first? On the one hand, we have people saying that Save or Die is good because of the tension and challenge it adds to the game. At the same time, I'm hearing that if a DM uses Save or Die without warning the PCs in advance, or bending the rules to mitigate its effects, he is a bad DM. I don't think you can have it both ways.</blockquote>

Verification