D&D 5E Should 5e have save or die?

[Stormonu]

I've been watching the back and forth, and there is one disadvantage I see to changing save-or-die to eat through hit points.

Damage creep.

If a cockatrice's beak petrifies, and such damage is supposed to emulate being turned to stone, what is appropriate? 1d8 damage? 3d8? 12d8?

And what does it take to kill it? In most editions cockatrice are the weakest of the turn-to-stone creatures. Basilisk would be next up the scale, followed by medusa, and then a gorgon. How do you scale the damage they deal in petrifying? At what point would the damage become absurdly more powerful than say, Dragon's breath? If you don't scale the damage, wouldn't this make facing them at low levels suicide and at high levels pitiful? Is this something you would want?

 

[Lanefan]

Anyone who is defending save or die has spent probably as much time defending save or die as I spend on a character in an ongoing campaign. So the personal investment is the same.

I hope this isn't true, as if it is your characters haven't been lasting very long.

Since the medusa is the most frequent example for save or die on this thread, it can be a saving throw vs. petrification. If they fail the roll, they can never defend save or die ever again.

You can use for favourite class and your favorite old school edition, and the level you roll on will be the level of your enworld avatar. Enworld also handily comes with a dice roller.

OK, I can't see my level while typing this but I know it's reasonable; in the low-mid teens or thereabouts. I'm a 1e Fighter saving vs. petrification. In the interests of fairness I have no magic that'll help. Checking my handy 1e DMG it looks like I'm good above about 6, with 4-6 being borderline and lower a fail.
***EDIT: now I see I'm 15th, so I need 5 or better***

So let's see what I get, if this thing works...

Lanefan

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Wrong. A friend of my dad's was a paratrooper in WW2. His chute failed and he plummeted thousands of feet and landed flat of his back in a farmer's field. He got up and walked several miles to the nearest unit. His back was broken and he spent several months recuperating, but he DID walk away. You can say he got extremely lucky, but that's the point. Heroes get lucky all the time.

EdiT: He also had the coolest name EVER: Buck Austin.

Do you think it requires only the chance of a natural 20 to survive such a fall? Because that's the worst chance a d20 based system offers.

If his back was broken, I also wouldn't say "he walked away". He survived. But he didn't grab his sword afterwards and killed some Goblins. Or grab his gun and shot some badguys.

I presume you meant "disagree". Cause we do...

Let's agree to agree. Or disagree to disagree? Negations sound so.. negative.

I've been watching the back and forth, and there is one disadvantage I see to changing save-or-die to eat through hit points.

Damage creep.

If a cockatrice's beak petrifies, and such damage is supposed to emulate being turned to stone, what is appropriate? 1d8 damage? 3d8? 12d8?

And what does it take to kill it? In most editions cockatrice are the weakest of the turn-to-stone creatures. Basilisk would be next up the scale, followed by medusa, and then a gorgon. How do you scale the damage they deal in petrifying? At what point would the damage become absurdly more powerful than say, Dragon's breath? If you don't scale the damage, wouldn't this make facing them at low levels suicide and at high levels pitiful? Is this something you would want?

Well, whatever damage is "appropriate" for a monster of the respective level with an ability of this type. The damage represents the "effort" to not look the beast in the eye, but the amount is determined by the level of challenge the monster is supposed to represent.

 

[Walking Dad]

... Don't like them? Don't use them.

Not included? Houserule them in.

 

[Elf Witch]

Not included? Houserule them in.

Even better have the rules support more than one way to do it.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Do you think it requires only the chance of a natural 20 to survive such a fall? Because that's the worst chance a d20 based system offers.

If his back was broken, I also wouldn't say "he walked away". He survived. But he didn't grab his sword afterwards and killed some Goblins. Or grab his gun and shot some badguys.

Actually, he walked several miles. And if he'd had to, he would have shot some bad guys. Maybe he did, I wasn't there. I haven't talked to him in ages, but I'm always reminded of it whenever someone claims there's no way to survive a long fall.

I'd say a standard save should apply. People survive long falls all the time.

 

[Gronin]

For me Save or Die/Suck is the deal breaker.

I have always hated saves in general and the SOD/S the most of all. I am okay with the way that 4th Ed has changed most of the previously saved against effects to attacks against a particular defense. I am also okay with the effects of successful attacks that require rolls every round to try to over. I am even okay with the rare effect that can result in a "Suck" result (for example Drow poison).

I do not like seeing someones character killed on one bad roll or a campaign ended by the same. There have been plenty of people who have mentioned similar problems so I won't go any further.

As far as the suck effects (level draining being the big one) I am not a fan of those either. (And yes I know there was not a saving throw against this in every edition)

I do have a question for those who a proponents of the saving throw -- how do you feel about going back to the system that requires anyone who fails a saving throw to then make a saving throw for everything they had on them?

I have seen instances of wizards wrappingg their spellbooks in leather and lacing them inside a wooden box which is inside a metal box which is then inside their backpack? I can remember instances of heroes standing badly charred and butt naked on the battlefield. Of course we also used to stand in a pot before opening any newly found scroll in case it was cursed with the dreaded "you turn to a viscous liquid and drain away" effect. Learned that one the hard way.

Are these fond memories -- not sure -- I suppose in retropect they are but then neither of them happened to my character ..... I will say that at the time the character (and player) was pretty devestated. Probably wasn't a fun evening for them.

 

[mmadsen]

I have always hated saves in general and the SOD/S the most of all. I am okay with the way that 4th Ed has changed most of the previously saved against effects to attacks against a particular defense.

How is an attack against a defense different from a save?

(Or are you pleased by some of the other changes they made to formerly save-or-die attacks?)

 

[Gronin]

Double Post -- Sorry

 

[Gronin]

How is an attack against a defense different from a save?

(Or are you pleased by some of the other changes they made to formerly save-or-die attacks?)

Sorry wasn't very coherent earlier --- the problem with trying to work and follow/read forums. You are of course correct -- who rolls the die doesn't change things --- to be honest I am not sure where I was going with that train but it certainly ended up off the tracks.

I am pleased with the change to (with very few exceptions) the results of these types of rolls. Everything hingeing on one roll is something that does not appeal to me.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.