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: 5277994" data-attributes="member: 61155">I'm going to keep reiterating a point you keep looking past: I'm not shifting goalposts, I'm sharing a viewpoint.  When I die at the start of combat because a Wizard had a Save or Die spell, I don't feel like my character got the chance to influence his fate. Yes, there were choices I could have made that would have prevented that, such as playing a different character or investing in magic items or spells that would save me from certain death. I don't feel those would have been viable or reasonable choices to make.  When I die at the end of a long, grueling combat, on the other hand, I feel like I had many decision points that affected the outcome, and whether I'm happy with the result or not, I feel like I had an influence on it.  If you don't feel the same, that's fine. But my point is that, for me, a death in which I feel like I had no control over the outcome - which feels purely like random chance (the wizard happened to target me, and a single die roll happened to roll low) is less satisfying than a death that results from events I was able to influence, both by the decisions I made as a player and the actions taken by my character.   Not even remotely! That's my point - the DM that knows when to break the rules, when to bypass them, and when to apply them, is the mark of a truly good DM. There are plenty of DMs that are not at that level who are still perfectly competent DMs capable of running a decent game.  You also seem to be ignoring some of the other cenarios.  A DM runs an encounter with a wizard. Maybe it is a random encounter. Maybe it is an ambush by a rival adventuring party. Maybe it is the big bad guy the PCs have been hunting for months.  If the Wizard has a Save or Die in his spellbook - or several - does that mean the DM is a bad DM? Is he a bad DM if the PCs have no advance notice of this Save or Die spell, even if it wouldn't make sense for them to do so? I'm just trying to clarify, here, that you feel the problem in this case isn't the Save or Die spells themselves, but the DM choosing to use them without specifically preparing the PCs so they could counter them in advance?  That's the point I've made several times now - I'd be a lot happier with SoD effects if there were more guidance on using them. But you can't somehow divorce that from the SoD rules themselves. The lack of guidance on them, the specific implementations on them, and the places they show up in the rules - all of those things are intrinsic parts of the Save or Die rules themselves.  I'm saying that there is a time and place for Save or Die effects, typically as something extremely rare that presents the PCs a unique challenge to overcome. But the way they have been delivered by the rules, in my past experiences, have been as just another monster or spell ability that randomly strikes down PCs. I don't like that, and I've given several reasons why.   Let me go over the reasons I've given one more time: 1) I don't like having a single roll decide a character's fate. 2) I find death to a SoD effect anticlimactic compared to a death as part of an epic battle. 3) I find SoD deaths tend to be more disruptive than many other deaths.  These are all personal preferences. Are you really telling me that you believe extensive examination will reveal that these preferences will fall apart when examined, and that I should not see any offense in your attempts to tell me that I don't have valid reasons for the preferences I have?   My position can't be correct or incorrect - as I've said before, I'm offering my personal reasons for my preference. I'm not trying to force anyone to accept my own personal logic.  I'm perfectly cool with someone who says that have not had similar experiences as I have on these topics, or who says that their preferences are different. In fact, I imagine there are people who:  1) Find it exciting and thrilling to have everything riding on a single roll;2) Find deaths caused by SoD to be satisfying, either because they feel like a proper mythic fate or because it feels so callous and challenge, or for any number of other reasons;3) Don't find these deaths any more disruptive than anything else.  I am perfectly cool with all of these opinions, which are precisely opposite the ones that I have put forward. What I am not cool with is you saying that my opinions are founded on invalid reasoning. That the opinions I have formed are not acceptable ones to have, essentially. That you don't just disagree with how I feel, but outright need to prove that how I feel is conceptually unsound.  That, I will continue to object to.</blockquote>

Verification