Save or die?

[BJP]

With the plethora of Tomb of Horrors posts (OK, 2) doing the rounds, I have a quick question.

How do you deal with save or die? Do you deal with it as written, or use some different technique?

I'm thinking of using changing it to save or (1 / 0 / -1) hp; each has their own pros and cons (and if I did 'save or 1hp' I'd probably add some additional rules), but I'm inclined to go for the 'save or dying' result.

Am I just being soft on players, or does anyone else use something like this?

Jim.

 

[Crothian]

I tend to remove all save or die things from the books. They aren't fun. THe players don't use them, I don't use them.

 

[Darkness]

I'm thinking of using changing it to save or (1 / 0 / -1) hp; each has their own pros and cons (and if I did 'save or 1hp' I'd probably add some additional rules), but I'm inclined to go for the 'save or dying' result.

I'd use "save or -1d10." I.e., if you fail the save, you roll 1d10 and that's how far below 0 hp you are.

Either that, or "save or -8." Save or 1/0/-1 is a bit too forgiving IMO.

Assuming you don't simply eliminate save-or-die stuff, which can be a good idea too.

 

[bodhi]

Monte Cook has some thoughts: http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_144

I like the idea of the BBEG using his Spell Of Doom, and the low level farmboy dies, the guards are comatose, the captain is paralyzed, and Our Heroes are stunned for a moment, but shake it off.

 

[IronWolf]

I'd use "save or -1d10." I.e., if you fail the save, you roll 1d10 and that's how far below 0 hp you are.

I like this suggestion if I were to keep a save or die in the game. I think I may have to borrow this one next time the situation comes up.

 

[BJP]

Hmm, some interesting ideas already.

I like the 'save or -1d10' idea. Keeps some randomness, and gets rid of some of the quirks I had with the 1 / 0 / -1 approach.

The stuff on Monte Cooks blog is interesting to. I quite the like stun / paralysis / dying / dead progression, but I'm not so sure about the implementation. If you set it up like his Holy Word example, then powerful spells essentially become only a slight hinderance to characters - it almost removes too much risk.

How about a series of sequential saves? First successful save bails out of the above chain - so you've got to miss 4 successive saves to die. Keeps some randomness in, and keeps save or die a genuine threat, but higher level characters still possess some extra resistance to really serious damage.

Jim.

 

[the Jester]

In my opinion, save or die stuff is fine. There are lots of counters to it (from high Fort saves to death ward), and by the time villains start tossing death spell stuff the pcs aren't far from being able to cast resurrection.

I do kind of like the idea of swapping save or die stuff for serious con damage. The -1d10 idea is also really cool.

 

[lgburton]

How about a series of sequential saves? First successful save bails out of the above chain - so you've got to miss 4 successive saves to die. Keeps some randomness in, and keeps save or die a genuine threat, but higher level characters still possess some extra resistance to really serious damage.

Jim.

i like the idea you've got here - enough to actually use it. given a sufficiently high save dc, it really does make sure that the threat is real, but avoidable. it also the reflex/half idea.

 

[Nifft]

How about "save or suffer 10 Con damage"?

You won't often go from Fine to Dead, but it stands a good chance of killing you.

-- N

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I make save or die spells all work similar to 3.5 disentegrate. They deal 20d6+20 plus 1d6+1 per caster level.

Though I do like the idea of -1d10 HP. I might use this rule in the future instead of my current one.