Save or die

[LokiDR]

I've found players get annoyed by repeated death/raise dead. If it happens too often, it just gets boring and annoying, as if I'm just stealing their XP as opposed to equipment. My favorite experience have been with the hero points from Arcana Unearthed. Live, but lose an arm. That is interesting.

 

[FireLance]

In both my current campaigns (Eberron), I allow the use of 3 actions pts to change a killing blow or effect into one that renders you unconcscious and stabilized at -9. So "save-or-die" effects aren't a problem.

Yup, action points help to mitigate many save-or-die scenarios.

 

[TheEvil]

I don't mind save or bad things like blindness happen, but I don't care as much for the literal save or die spells.

 

[genshou]

Most of my past games have been more along the lines of high fantasy, whereas Pledge of Tyranny is a gritty take on the Forgotten Realms. In either case, save-or-die doesn't come up often, but I have custom-crafted systems for dealing with each which conform to the style desired.

In general D&D, I use a variant which drops the character to -1 hit points and dying status. In Pledge of Tyranny, a death attack is a called shot to a specific location, so it follows the rules for called shots. Death spells don't exist as we use Elements of Magic in place of core Vancian magic.

 

[Agback]

When I DM I use them as written, but sparingly. I figure that they have an essential role in balancing hit-point inflation, and restoring some of the dramatic, tactical, and political mojo of an assassin's blade or a marksman's high-powered rifle. Without save-or-die effects in high-level play nothing is decisive. Every battle is an attritional slugfest, the results go to the stronger party with high (but not perfect) consistency. Cunning and circumspection lose too much of their value.

 

[Grogtar]

I consider Save or Die to be the nuclear weapons of D&D.

If you use them, your DM is going to. If you keep the war conventional, your DM will too. Much like sundering, if you (the players) dont want it in game, then dont use it and the DM probably wont either.

 

[Ogre Mage]

I prefer the "if fail save vs. death, knocked to -5 HP" method.

 

[Magesmiley]

You know the interesting thing here is the frequency which players hit save or die versus the frequency monsters have to do so. I'd actually hazard a guess that save or die actually helps the players more often than it hurts them.

 

[genshou]

I consider Save or Die to be the nuclear weapons of D&D.

If you use them, your DM is going to. If you keep the war conventional, your DM will too. Much like sundering, if you (the players) dont want it in game, then dont use it and the DM probably wont either.

What an idealistic view you have of the world, Grogtar...

I'll keep on sundering whether my PCs return the favour or not. So far, they haven't. DM 143, Players 0

 

[Grogtar]

Not to get off Topic Genshou but from a realistic standpoint the GM has everything to gain from Sundering, and the players have everything to lose.

Since the GM can, at any time, say "And a meteor hits the planet, killing you all" I tend to shy away from things where the DM is up 100% on the party.

Think about it - for wealth the party relies on gear from fallen foes. Your NPC's dont need it, as you poof them into existance fully loaded. It is, by nature lopsided in favor of the DM. Seems kind of stupid really.