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

[Pilgrim]

I posted what I consider a reasonable method for handling Sv vs Death in another thread concerning Medusa and turn to stone, but a similar situation with poison could easily be handled as either insta-death or progressive death.

Basically, just write the effect:

Deadly Poison: If a character comes in contact with this poison, make a "saving throw", failure indicates death.
Optional Save: Failure(1) "Nausea", Failure(2) "Paralysis", Failure(3) "Death"

Just something quick and dirty, but it could work none the less.

 

[DonTadow]

I'd say make it modular.

Maybe certain abilities have two ways of ruling them "killer" version and "non killer" version.

I don't know, but I hate save or die. It sucks the fun out of a night for me. I realize some others disagree with that.

I have seen a few players in my groups frustrated by them, but there needs to be a degree of magic and those are extreme degrees of magic. I am a fan of having primary and secondary conditions. Primary conditions slow you, hurt you over time, cause random effects thta may take you out of no more than one round.
Secondary effects happen at the end of the combat. (thus the spell can still be used out of combat). Sleeping, paralzying, long term effects.

However, some secondary effects are treated as death. If all party members or all other party member parish, then the spell triggers, so the threat of a tpk is still looming.

Here's the kicker, and yeah i'm in the monsters work different camp. monsters either automatically get the secondary effect or they get the secondary effect if they fail by a certain number.

 

[ferratus]

I think it would definately better if all classes could get in on save or die. I've never understood why "disintegrate" was save or die, but "knife to the head" wasn't.

If the undo buttons are availabe at low levels (neutralize poison, stone to flesh, etc) and are available for low cost, then it also would be better.

But save or suck spells, and save or die spells (and I think they all suck) have 3 problems for me.

1) Unecessary book-keeping. Level and Ability draining is a pain in the ass to track, and then refresh. Most of the time it is utterly pointless to bother upgrading your character sheet because the cleric will just undo it.

2) You take someone out of the game for a session while they make a new character, or you have to awkwardly shoehorn a new character in. Everything you've prepped for that character as a DM and every goal you'd hoped to achieve goes in the crapper.

3) Raise dead becomes necessary. Ressurection is a fairly powerful story event and I hate to see it become commonplace. Save or die means that this event is never rare. I know, I played the prior editions too.

If I was to make save or die modular, I'd re-release the classic Tomb of Horrors with the "lethal posions and spells of Acerack" (that players can learn), with the monsters that do level draining, ability score draining, and instant kills. I'd bill it as "D&D AT ITS DEADLIEST" and I'd release it alongside the 5e core rules.

 

[hanez]

Yes. Its a part of the game. The game is LESS fun without save or dies, thats the whole point of a medusa and other fantastical creatures. Digital games shouldnt have these things, because they have to human to interpret, mitigate, weave things like this into the story. But D&D has a Dungeon Master, its his job to control save or dies as best as possible to make sure they add to the campaign. Every move to balance and streamline the game and take less responsibility (and control) from the DM it ends up feeling more like a modern video game.

And I cant believe someone suggested making it modular. If you dont like the monster dont use, hows that for a module for you? If you dont like the spell, ban it, thats another module. Save or dies dont have to be plentiful, but banning them outright is one of the major reasons why 4e does not feel like d&d

 

[Ichneumon]

I've never been a big fan of save or die, but I could live with it if its targeting was restricted to bloodied characters (with a lesser effect applying against non-bloodied). Other conditions can also apply, e.g having kept eye contact for an entire round.

Save or die didn't disappear from 4e; the monsters with SoD abilities just had to work a bit harder to make them stick. That makes sense to me.

 

[Mr. Patient]

Another vote for including some save or dies (or be petrified, or polymorphed into a toad, or whatever). Not as many as 1e or 3e, perhaps, but some. I find that a great many 4e monsters just aren't scary enough, and I think simple hit point attrition is tedious.

I do agree with those asking for some nonmagical save or dies, to let fighters and rogues in on the action. Seems like it should be doable.

 

[ferratus]

And I cant believe someone suggested making it modular. If you dont like the monster dont use, hows that for a module for you? If you dont like the spell, ban it, thats another module. Save or dies dont have to be plentiful, but banning them outright is one of the major reasons why 4e does not feel like d&d

I'm not going to ban necromancy and poison from the game, try again. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

I don't see how the game can get along just fine with assassins, whose very job description is killing human beings quickly, without save or die, but monsters and mages can't. If assassins without save or die can exist in a game without the rules causing cognative dissonance, there is no reason a medusa has to instantly kill.

Heck, what does it matter if the person has one saving throw, or whether they have the more generous 3 saving throws? How does only one saving throw make it better for immersion? Why is ongoing 10 hp of damage from poison (giving a cleric 12-60 seconds to come over with a neutralize poison spell) not as immersive as a lethal poison that instantly kills you?

 

[mmadsen]

I've never understood why "disintegrate" was save or die, but "knife to the head" wasn't.

Indeed, "knife to the head" should be a save-or-die situation, but it's not.

If you're a 4E minion, taking a "knife to the head" -- getting hit with a lethal weapon that overcomes your armor -- is instant death, with no save.

Otherwise, there's still no save, but you lose points from your mixed pool of health, toughness, fighting spirit, luck, divine providence, and plot protection.

I think we should take health and toughness out of the hit-point pool and make a "knife to the head" force a Fort save -- but you'd be able to use points from your mixed pool of fighting spirit, luck, divine providence, and plot protection to boost your roll (after the fact).

And you'd be able to use this pool against all threats, from petrifying stares, to poison apples, to slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not a fan of "save or die," as it often has the feeling of the DM as intentionally player-killing. Perhaps there should be multiple rolls provided for "save or die" instead of simply one.

 

[Fanaelialae]

And I cant believe someone suggested making it modular. If you dont like the monster dont use, hows that for a module for you? If you dont like the spell, ban it, thats another module. Save or dies dont have to be plentiful, but banning them outright is one of the major reasons why 4e does not feel like d&d

What is it about the suggestion, that something that a lot of people don't like (save-or-die) be optional, that you find difficult to believe? Now, I'll grant you, there are plenty of pro-instant-death folks out there too, so the option should certainly exist for them, but it should be optional.

The problem with making save or die core is that it forces anyone who doesn't like instant death to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Want to use a beholder but don't like save-or-die? Sucks to be you, because the official beholder of D&D uses death effects.

I don't want to have to pick out the bits of the game that I don't like just because you like them. I could just as easily say that they shouldn't make save-or-die because you can house rule it in easily enough, but I wouldn't say that because it's unnecessarily dismissive when we can both have what we want easily enough. Like most of the things that significant groups of players disagree on, it should be modular.