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

[Aldarc]

I've seen campaigns fail because the DM tries to please everybody and ends up pleasing nobody, or because the DM lacks the force of will to hold the thing together. I think DMing requires leadership. Good leaders won't leave a sour taste. That said, good leaders are hard to find, in any domain. Again, I think that rules aren't a substitute for good DMing.

Do I have a script? Do I cut things that don't work after they happen? No. I'm directing an improv. It did take me time to learn how to balance the few things that I dictate over reactions and developments that happen during play. I think my players have complained more about having too much responsibility than not enough! But these days everyone's on the same page.

I just want to make it clear where I was coming from with my own preferences and experiences. DMing is definitely a balancing act. I just happen to believe that the story's not centered around the DM, but revolves in that space between the DM and players.

I suspect that this is true. I think I've stated my case well and you seem to have done yours. I doubt either of us is likely to change philosphies, so I'll amicably agree to disagree and hopefully the coversation will be an interesting read for others.

Hopefully. This conversation has been beneficial, as I think that the major point of disagreement is not whether save-or-die is in the game, but whether or it not it is the default setting for monsters and spells.

 

[Mr. Patient]

Besides, which is more anti-climatic? Never quite turning someone to stone because the players fought off the curse, or being able to undo turning someone to stone after a quick prayer and a nap?

Fair enough, but are you arguing that if the PC is petrified after a 2-3 round process, it ought to be permanent?

My argument in favor of increasing save-or-die is that I feel that the designers went overboard in reducing the swinginess of combat, and have neutered a lot of interesting encounters as a result. In the last few months, I've run encounters with vampires, succubi and mind flayers. None of these was substantially different than fighting a bunch of ogres. Now, it's entirely possible, even probable, that I suck as a DM. But at some point, I feel like the system is letting me down, and making it too easy for combats to devolve into rock-em-sock-em-robots.

 

[Wormwood]

The Medusa was the daughter of gods who didn't hang around in dungeon complexes or on random encounter tabes.

Orcus in 4e killed people with a save or die effect too. When Orcus does it, its cool. He's a demon lord. When a fairly low level or random monster does it, not so much.

When Orcus does it, you are an epic level character who has many ways to either avoid or come back from death.

Which, by the way, is awesome.

 

[ferratus]

Fair enough, but are you arguing that if the PC is petrified after a 2-3 round process, it ought to be permanent?

I think I'd rather have the case that a PC suffer the effects which end his career be rare and that be a long lasting consequence. Cheapening death with raise dead bothers me quite a bit.

My argument in favor of increasing save-or-die is that I feel that the designers went overboard in reducing the swinginess of combat, and have neutered a lot of interesting encounters as a result. In the last few months, I've run encounters with vampires, succubi and mind flayers. None of these was substantially different than fighting a bunch of ogres. Now, it's entirely possible, even probable, that I suck as a DM. But at some point, I feel like the system is letting me down, and making it too easy for combats to devolve into rock-em-sock-em-robots.

Well I certainly can't argue with that, because 4e combat is a slog, as even its most ardent defenders would agree. I myself can agree that 4e monsters are a bit too defanged.

However, I don't think bringing in one hit kills are the way to bring excitement back into combat. It just seems like a way to frustrate and anger players without really adding much to the story other than a momentary shock.

 

[ferratus]

When Orcus does it, you are an epic level character who has many ways to either avoid or come back from death.

Which, by the way, is awesome.

Well, Perseus was given many artifacts from the gods to avoid death, and told precisely how to defeat the Medusa. So I think he definately has the "ways to avoid death" part down.

 

[fuzzlewump]

I can see it being there, in a modular form. Basically, have the math balanced to where a monster can either deal damage per round that on average equals how much 'damage' the save or die will do. Say level 1, we have 30 hitpoints. If there is a 50% chance of the save or die working, that means the monsters can instead deal about 23 damage per round, and it's effectively the same. (Two hits from 23 damage puts the hero to -16, or dead, the save or die works half the time, so 'on average' it would take 2 tries to do the same thing.)

All you have to do is figure out average HP per level, include other nuances such as having to roll a to-hit on a save or die attack, and crunch the numbers. That would satisfy both camps I think.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

So, the basic points are this:

1. Some things, traditionally and realistically, should kill you.

2. Nobody wants their character to be randomly killed off.

I think that both of these points are important, and that a baseline design would satisfy both.

Let's look at Medusa. If you look at her, you die. I think this is right and proper. At the same time, Medusa should never be hiding behind a random door in a dungeon. As a DM, if my players are going to face Medusa, they need to be notified of this beforehand.

There's a particular kind a tension in a fight where looking at the enemy means instant death. This is cool. This should be supported. But that's a set-piece battle. That's something that the players should be walking toward with dread. So, even if a single roll might result in a character death, and that will suck, it isn't unfair.

The same thing applies to Disintegrate and Finger of Death. So long as these abilities aren't sprung on players as a surprise, they have a place. It's like the assassin mentioned above. Slitting someone's throat kills them. A DM that sends an assassin to slit a PC's throat in the night is probably not doing the right thing (unless the PC knowingly did something that would cause this and then didn't prepare for it).

Most poisons and monster abilities shouldn't be save or die. They should have dramatic effects, certainly, but if it's going to be sprung on players, it shouldn't be unfair.

TLDR version: Save or Die is a useful tool, but must be applied properly by the DM and should never be random or unfair. Proper use of the few Save or Die effects that exist should be clearly discussed in the DM information.

 

[vagabundo]

I'd prefer that save or die was not in, or at least changed significantly if it is included. Save of die tends to suck the drama from an encounter quite quickly. Even with foreshadowing it is anticlimatic.

If it was to be included I'd prefer the death track mentioned above, there is nothing more entertaining then watching my player scramble around, with panicked looks on their faces, searching through their character sheets, because they know that in 4 rounds one of them will be a statue or dead. Oh the drama!

I'd love if my party was capable of preparing elaborate plans for the assault on the Medusa; meticulously researching texts for clues about her powers, etc. Unfortunately my players, like, I suspect, the majority of DND players out there, would take the Leroy Jenkins approach and just kick in the door, ignoring most of them statues. if they cover their eyes because they seen it in Clash of the Titans when they were a kid, I'd count myself lucky.

Now, in a perfect world I'd just turn them to stone, laugh evilly and call it a night, but that just isn't enough suffering for my lousy players. A death track would make them suffer. I want to see the anguish on their faces over several rounds. I want to them to be tortured with knowledge that they are terrible DND players and that they should have prepared better.

But in my heart I know that next time, at the evil wizards tower, the one they heard has the power over life or death, it will be the same: the circle of DND...

 

[trancejeremy]

I think part of this stems on how the way D&D is played has changed from its inception.

In the very early days, a player might have more than one character. Your guy (or even the whole party) gets killed or petrified? Well, you had others that would go into the dungeon and drag them out and get them raised/unstoned.

This could often provide an adventure in of itself. Like the wizard or cleric who did the unstoning/raising would want something done.

It was also often more freeform or sandbox-ish. Players did what they wanted their characters to do, not follow elaborately constructed stories...

 

[Hassassin]

Why I like to see some SOD:

1. Lethality and some things that are just seriously dangerous.
2. Ways of bypassing the normal hit point attrition for more interesting combat.
3. Even lower level creatures should continue to be a threat.

Now could another mechanic give me all that? Sure. So I don't necessarily even want SOD if there's a better mechanic or mechanics.

Point #1 can be easily handled by the DM just using higher level threats on occasion, but I think occasional SOD effects are still good. For #2 things like negative levels or ability damage in 3e could work (if not for the book-keeping), or the effect could take several saves/whatever. For #3 SOD isn't even a good fix, instead I'd just like to see PCs' power scale a lot less.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One could make the "Bloodied" condition and "total surprise" situations nastier by allowing save or die effects then. (Or maybe just "die" effects, actually?) If you're so unprepared, or so weakened, you can die by a single spell or a knife attack to the head. But if you're prepared and not too weakened, the enemies spell won't really hit you, and that knife might be aimed for your head, but won't hit it.

Generally, I think it may be good if the system allows "engineering" situations where you can kill someone instantly. Ambushes, whittling down someone's hit points so he's weakened enough. but it shouldn't be easy, and ultimately, it should require some level of work on the attacking side and some level of failure on the defending side (e.g. not forseeing the attack).

Theoretically, 4E D&D allows a single Intimidate check to take a bloodied NPC out of a fight by forcing him to retreat. It seems a mere technicality to also have some kind of arcane deaths spell that does something similar, except the enemy dies from it and doesn't merely retreat.

Also to keep in mind:

A monster like the Medusa in mythology is a special monster. There are no Medusa Archers, Medusa Spellslingers, Medusa Minions (4e speak), nor Medusa Fighters and Medusa Barbarians and Medusa Rogue/Assassin (3e speak). There is this one, unique monster that petrifies you if you encounter it. You won't encounter it by accident, because people fear it and know where it is, usually.

Such a special "story creature" can be allowed to do things that monsters that you meet by the dozen in random encounters. Just as the story as you use it will also offer some counters if the party is smart enough to figure them out.

If you put save or die abilities on spells, then such spells should be equally rare. A 15th level Wizard shouldn't slot 20 spells from which 6 can be save or die spells. Maybe he should be able to slot only 5 spells, and one of these is reputed to be a deadly spell, allowing him to kill a person just by pointing his finger at it.

 

[BryonD]

No need for the sarcasm.

You might want to go back and look at the dripping in sarcasm post from you I replied to before you stand by that....

This is not the "current edition" forum. This is the D&D Next discussion forum.

Of course. But the "current edition" provides an excellent object lesson for designing "D&D next". Why are you rejecting looking at history for lessons?

You may want to check out their design goals and see whether they match your own.

My goal is a much bigger fan base than 4E had. What is yours and do you think it aligns with WotC better than that?

I want for there to be options for SoD, but I also don't want someone else's style of gaming to trample and impede on mine.

Who said it had to?

How do they not have anything to do with gaming? These "absolutes" effectively form rules for how the game works. Your statement below, for example, basically dictates the rules for how the the rules for the medusa must operate along SoD, and if it's not SoD, then it's not a "true Medusa."

It takes more than just that to be a "true Medusa". But without that it may not be Medusa. If you can look at it and take some harm but not turn to stone the de facto it is not Medusa. It may be a cool fun monster but it is not Medusa.

Your game packed with "lesser Medusa's" may be awesome fun, but if you look at Medusa you turn to stone.

I would rather see monster abilities have lethality dial options for DMs, who may want appropriately adjust monsters as they see fit for their particular campaigns and settings.

Cool.
You can put a dial on Medusa and have an awesome fun game.
I endorse that as a great idea for next edition.

If you turn the "look at" dial off the pegged, the monster stops being Medusa. It may be a more fun monster than Medusa. It may be less fun. There is no merit to claiming either side of that is truth.

But it stops being Medusa.

 

[BryonD]

The Medusa was the daughter of gods who didn't hang around in dungeon complexes or on random encounter tabes.

This is a very valid point.

However the distinction between mechanical simulation and narrative role is important.

D&D has always simply declared that Medusa, Pegasus, Minotaur, etc.... are names of races rather than unique individuals as the myths endorse. But I could use 3E to run a world in which there is only one Medusa and tell an alternate version of the myth. The mechanical simulation of Medusa fits that.

4E does not lend itself to doing a quality job of providing that option.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I firmly believe that save or die should be optional.

I also don't agree with it for reasons of verisimilitude. A single sword blow or arrow should be capable of killing an experienced fighter outright if you're arguing for realism.

You don't need magic to kill people; folks die in the real world all the time. I expect if you polled people on the streets, you'd find the idea of someone who can't be killed by any less than two strikes from a sword to be at least as absurd as a medusa who can't instantly turn you to stone, and probably more so.

The difference between save or die and dying from hp attrition is that one minor streak of (bad) luck typically won't cause you to die from damage, but will cost you with save or die. You only have to fail a search for traps once in order for a poison trap to cost your character's life. A bad roll during combat typically won't kill you outright; usually you have a chance to recover by playing well.

And I absolutely don't want to see a return to the good old days of tapping every tile with a 10' pole just in case. Sure it's smart play in a world filled with instant death, but it's also lame. You don't see navy seals engaging in such behavior, Conan didn't do it, and Indiana Jones didn't behave that way, so why do D&D characters?

As for whoever said that players would not want to sacrifice save-or-die so that the DM is denied it? Patently false, at least in the case of my group. We used save or die once, on a boss, and realized that it was so anti-climactic that we had no taste for it. This was back in the 3e days, and the DM had spent literally hours putting together this monstrosity; it rolled a natural 1 on it's save and an epic fight was reduced to nothing. After that, we boycotted save-or-die, even if the DM didn't. For us, it doesn't add anything to the game; it just reduces the fun for everyone.

We're not looking to be coddled. Our favorite DM, although impartial, takes great pride in killing characters. But there's nothing to take pride in when death is totally random, as is the case with save-or-die. To put it another way, there's nothing inherently skilled about playing an FPS wherein everyone just uses one-shot-one-kill rocket launchers.

I guess you can attribute my biggest qualm with save-or-die to that there's never a sense of accomplishment with it, regardless of the outcome.

IMO, of course.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is a very valid point.

However the distinction between mechanical simulation and narrative role is important.

D&D has always simply declared that Medusa, Pegasus, Minotaur, etc.... are names of races rather than unique individuals as the myths endorse. But I could use 3E to run a world in which there is only one Medusa and tell an alternate version of the myth. The mechanical simulation of Medusa fits that.

4E does not lend itself to doing a quality job of providing that option.

I think you could do both equally good in either edition.

The thing is - there is ton of stuff happening in the game world that the rules don't try to simulate by default. From going to the toilet to how the evil arch wizard can actually destroy the entire plane in his pursuit for power (which the PCs are trying to stop).

But maybe we should have better mechanical support for some of this. Maybe there should be a rule that allows us to make Medusas as a race, and have The Medusa as unique monster. But we should't just mix them. In my opinion, for "The Medusa", there doesn't even have to be a save. No one that ever looked the mythological Medusa in the eye got just a chance to petrify. It happened, the end. You needed to be prepared with special magical items. but you wouldn't really meet her accidentally when walking around a corner. (Unless you really missed all the clues with status of armed guys in various state of surprise, the rumors and the stories in the surrounding cities and villages, you missed your historical creatures exam in Wizard School and all of that). But a Medusa as a race that just insta-petrifies everyone - that doesn't really work. It's silly, even. For the race Medusa which allows hundreds or thousands of individuals of them, the petrificatio thing must be more myth than reality - based on a kernel of truth, sure, maybe some mythological "uber Medusa", or the ability to petrify weakened or dead individuals, or just the habit of creating stone statues of fallen foes as a warning to others.

Save or Die or even "just Die" effects may have a place in any game, but it must be a special place. It can't just be something on the random encounter list or on a regular spell list.

 

[mmadsen]

I firmly believe that save or die should be optional.

I also don't agree with it for reasons of verisimilitude. A single sword blow or arrow should be capable of killing an experienced fighter outright if you're arguing for realism.

You don't need magic to kill people; folks die in the real world all the time. I expect if you polled people on the streets, you'd find the idea of someone who can't be killed by any less than two strikes from a sword to be at least as absurd as a medusa who can't instantly turn you to stone, and probably more so.

The difference between save or die and dying from hp attrition is that one minor streak of (bad) luck typically won't cause you to die from damage, but will cost you with save or die. You only have to fail a search for traps once in order for a poison trap to cost your character's life. A bad roll during combat typically won't kill you outright; usually you have a chance to recover by playing well.

As you note, a single sword blow or arrow should be capable of killing an experienced fighter outright if you're arguing for realism; it should be save-or-die.

But it's not, because high-level characters -- who aren't minions -- lose their plot-protection points instead.

So why can't they use these plot-protection points against threats that aren't swords and arrows? Why don't they have the same buffer against poison and petrification that they have against fireballs and claws?

 

[Fanaelialae]

As you note, a single sword blow or arrow should be capable of killing an experienced fighter outright if you're arguing for realism; it should be save-or-die.

But it's not, because high-level characters -- who aren't minions -- lose their plot-protection points instead.

So why can't they use these plot-protection points against threats that aren't swords and arrows? Why don't they have the same buffer against poison and petrification that they have against fireballs and claws?

I believe it should work that way (that hp protect you from poison and petrification as well as swords). Although, as I stated, I have no problem with a save-or-die option existing, for those that prefer that sort of thing.

 

[keterys]

True, at that point you could actually extend it a lot further.

Mage hits you with a disintegrate. Take 20 damage. If you're still alive, save or die.
Barbarian hits you with a greataxe. Take 20 damage. If you're still alive, save or die.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

True, at that point you could actually extend it a lot further.

Mage hits you with a disintegrate. Take 20 damage. If you're still alive, save or die.
Barbarian hits you with a greataxe. Take 20 damage. If you're still alive, save or die.

Well, I would, in game terms, do it the other way around.

Mage hits you with a disintegrate. Take 20 damage. If you're at 0 hit points, save or be disintegrated.
Barbarian hits you with a greataxe. Take 20 damage. If you're at 0 hit points, save or lose a limb and become dying.

Only difference is that the mage is slightly more deadly, but to be frank - if you just lost your arm, you may, if you're lucky, survive, but you still have one arm less and will be out for days or weeks. Probably not able to fight about as long as a guy reduced to ashes in a world of raise dead.

 

[mmadsen]

True, at that point you could actually extend it a lot further.

Mage hits you with a disintegrate. Take 20 damage. If you're still alive, save or die.
Barbarian hits you with a greataxe. Take 20 damage. If you're still alive, save or die.

I'd rather see it go the other way. Failed your Ref save? Use your not-really-hit points to boost it. The disintegration ray never hit you. Just missed your Fort save? Use your not-really-hit points to boost it. The ax deflected off your armor.