Save or die!

[Breakstone]

Oh, and just to give my opinion on the whole matter:

Despite the descriptive texts that would make the battle a bit more clamatic, I'm always dissapointed when the villain dies right away.

And I'm one of those DM's that probably wouldn't have given that long description.

But, I figure, a really good DM can turn a bad thing into an amazing experience in D&D.

 

[hong]

You'd still need Raise Dead if players die from being smacked repeatedly.

Perhaps, but it wouldn't have to be a constant presence.

That's a silly argument. You might as well ban fire spells in order to stop defenses like Protection from Fire; or ban melee combat in order to stop armour.

Last I checked, neither fire nor physical damage were defined by their ability to stop anyone dead in their tracks with just one hit.

Banning both the offensive and defensive sides to a coin doesn't solve anything: it just narrows the scope of the game.

In case you hadn't noticed, this thread _is_ about narrowing the scope of the game: to remove instakill effects.

True, but if all combat are hit-point bashes, it turns into a war of attrition of who runs out of healing first.

Nothing wrong with that. That's pretty much what happens at low levels, after all.

Or if you actually take out a combatant with hit-point bashing before their resources run out, it's no different in principle to save-or-die.

Last I checked, it generally took a bit longer to kill someone by wearing down their hit points, compared to single-save effects.

I eagerly await your fix .

What, you mean like banning instakill effects?

Good for you. I don't.

Then why are you posting to this thread?

 

[hong]

But, I figure, a really good DM can turn a bad thing into an amazing experience in D&D.

Oh, a DM that is good enough can turn _anything_ into an amazing experience.

However, said DM also doesn't need rules to tell them what to do. Rules are for the rest of us stupid people.

 

[Breakstone]

Oh, a DM that is good enough can turn _anything_ into an amazing experience

Y'know, out of context, that could sound really... odd.

 

[Ulrick]

I like Save or Die spells, especially when I use them against my PCs who have this tendency to complete kill off villains I've spent a good amount time creating.

So there.


Ulrick

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Then why are you posting to this thread?

I guess Al missed the memo where it told everyone that this wasn't a discussion thread but a whining thread.

If you take away insta kills for the wizard you beter give him d8hp at least because as the game is written everything the wizard faces is a insta kill.

And besides I can't count the number of times a fighter type, or rogue has insta killed the big bad, by just doing insane damage in one blow. Barbarian crits and 140 points of damage happens, mr evil wizard goes hm even after stone skin, I'm still very destroyed. And that wasn't even a full attack. Rogue, with ring of blinking, hmm does 42d6 in a single round, for 140+ points of damage.

 

[Munin]

Somtimes the simplest solution is the best.

In my campaign, there is NO resurrection of any type, so this problem was of special concern to me.

The solution was simple. At the start of every game session the players get one hero point. They can use the point to re-roll any one roll, even fumbles. The catch is major bad guys also get a hero point. So your dragon fails his save in the first round? No problem, spend your point.
And the nice thing is the cleric doesn't feel like he totally wasted his spell, since the dragon was forced to spend his only 'get out of jail free card'.
It also allows me to roll everything in front of the players, so WYSIWYG.
I don't have to mess with the rules, I don't have to nerf anyone's abilities, and it's fair across the board.

 

[Al]

Perhaps, but it wouldn't have to be a constant presence.

Highly arguable. If the DM removes save-or-dies without increasing the levels of straight hit-point damage on offer, all he's done is reduce the lethality of the campaign. In this case, it is true that Raise Dead would not be as prevalent. However, he may as well just keep save-or-dies and reduce lethality in other ways: it maintains variety and manufactures the same effect.

Last I checked, neither fire nor physical damage were defined by their ability to stop anyone dead in their tracks with just one hit.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that banning save-or-dies AND banning Death Ward etc. is as pointless as banning fire damage AND Protection from Fire. It doesn't achieve anything except the narrowing of the game and shifting the spotlight toward the tanks.

In case you hadn't noticed, this thread _is_ about narrowing the scope of the game: to remove instakill effects

And, of course, those opposed to removing instakill effects have no opportunity to raise a counter-argument...

Nothing wrong with that. That's pretty much what happens at low levels, after all.

Not true at all. Color Spray is pretty damned close to a save-or-die. And at low-levels, this effect is diminished. A couple of shots and you are down. At high-levels, just imagine how many Heals and Mass Heals both sides can muster to drag the combat out ad tedium (NB: If the character is killed, circumventing the use of Heals, then the net result is that you might as well have kept save-or-die.)

Last I checked, it generally took a bit longer to kill someone by wearing down their hit points, compared to single-save effects.

The net results in both cases in death. Not much difference between dying from being hit repeatedly or dying from failing in save, in the long run.

What, you mean like banning instakill effects?

No, I meant a balanced fix.

Then why are you posting to this thread?

Because an argument (with a few exceptions) generally tends to have two sides. See Shard O' Glase's comments.

 

[Henry]

I have read Hong's and Al's comments, and while I like the ideaof using ability damage, I actually still prefer the uncertainty that save or die spells give a combat. After all, combat in reality is risk - any time you raise a weapon with intent to kill, you are taking your chances. I rather enjoy seeing that element emulated in-game, because it makes players more hesitant to engage combat than if it were just a "hit-point race."

One thing I would DEFINITELY like to see in a new edition of D&D is alternatives to "save or die" mechanics in the Dungeon Master's Guide. While I prefer the existing method as default, it would be nice of them to address this issue just as they addressed multiclassing and critical hits.

 

[hong]

Highly arguable. If the DM removes save-or-dies without increasing the levels of straight hit-point damage on offer, all he's done is reduce the lethality of the campaign.

And given the lethality of high-level D&D by the book, this is a Good Thing as far as I'm concerned.

In this case, it is true that Raise Dead would not be as prevalent. However, he may as well just keep save-or-dies and reduce lethality in other ways: it maintains variety and manufactures the same effect.

Why not do both, then?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that banning save-or-dies AND banning Death Ward etc. is as pointless as banning fire damage AND Protection from Fire.

Nonsense.

It doesn't achieve anything except the narrowing of the game and shifting the spotlight toward the tanks.

Pfaugh. There should be plenty of ways to let boom-spell mages get their share of spotlight time without needing to have disintegrate, slay living, finger of death, work the way they currently do. They manage it even as low as 5th level, after all. And if you're a sorc, you can do it even as low as 3rd or 4th. I've never felt that wizards _needed_ instant death spells to make their presence known at high levels.

OA, as an example, removes a lot of these instant death spells, and substitutes others that deal ability damage. I've heard of no complaints that shamans, wu jen and shugenja suffer from a lack of spotlight time as a result.

And, of course, those opposed to removing instakill effects have no opportunity to raise a counter-argument...

You can raise a counterargument if you want. Saying "do you realise you're taking stuff out of the game?" is nothing more than stating the bleeding obvious.

Not true at all. Color Spray is pretty damned close to a save-or-die. And at low-levels, this effect is diminished. A couple of shots and you are down. At high-levels, just imagine how many Heals and Mass Heals both sides can muster to drag the combat out ad tedium

Until someone dies, anyway.

(NB: If the character is killed, circumventing the use of Heals, then the net result is that you might as well have kept save-or-die.)

There is a vast gulf between "instant kill" and "no-risk".

The net results in both cases in death. Not much difference between dying from being hit repeatedly or dying from failing in save, in the long run.

In the long run, we're all dead, yes. Your point being...?

No, I meant a balanced fix.

What, you want a perfect fix after one weekend's worth of messageboard haranguing? I'll keep that in mind next time you make a suggestion.