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

[keterys]

Well, yes - I don't want save or dies at all, so I'm totally for the other direction.

But, if folks really like save or dies, they should have the option to dial it up to "Bloody Mess" and have at it

 

[BryonD]

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

Ok, explain please.

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.

You are mixing mechanical and narrative comments here, so it is a bit hard to provide a simple reply.

I agree that there can be logistical issues with turning everyone to stone. The same basic issue applies to vampires. And werewolves. We can deal with these purely narrative concerns.

And yes, having "lesser" and "uber" Medusa is a fine narrative option as well. But if you want to model the Medusa of legend, be she unique or the basis for a race, then only the uber qualifies.

I don't agree that saves don't work. You can save for half vs. fireball and a lot of classes can avoid the damage altogether. As with HP and many other elements of mechanics are intended to support, not dominate storytelling.

A save is a perfectly valid mechanic for establishing if the look happened. SoD allows correct modeling, but it certainly does not come close to promising it. If in someone's game a player makes a save and the DM describe the character staring Medusa in the eye and saying "Bring it!! You can't turn me to stone!!" then I would readily agree that this is every bit as wrong.

And if a player in my game ever says "I look at the Medusa." I will reply, "OK you turn to stone." No save. If they jump into lava they will also die. Yes, they could also have magic options to trump these defaults. That is fine. But those are the defaults.

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.

Nah, I completely disagree. One of the origins of the basilisk is the cobra. You are walking along, minding your own business and WHAM you are dead.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

That would make for a consistent optional system.

I prefer the straight hp approach though. HP are luck/skill/whatever, and you can't die until they are exhausted. It's simple and straightforward.

5e could easily add in a Difficulty modifier to all attacks. Something like:

Clobber - 1d8 + Strength + Level + Difficulty damage

If you like the base level of lethality, you set Diff to zero and forget about it. If you like high lethality, perhaps you set it to 10 (or 1d10). Likelier than not that would result in characters that could be one-shot on a high roll (or crit). If you prefer low lethality, set Diff to -5 (perhaps only for the monsters, unless you don't mind long fights). AoEs would likely have something like + 1/2 Diff by default.

Now compare that to save-or-die. Even if I grant the player a +20 bonus to his saving throw, he still fails 5% of the time. A 5% chance of instant death, while hardly horrifying, isn't my idea of low lethality either. Additionally, the other 95% of the time, the creature wasted it's ability and therefore it's action, which also isn't desirable.

I like the condition track idea well enough though. I think that it would be a fine default compromise. Simple enough to change for high lethality; just skip the first two steps. For low lethality, simply change the "death" condition to incapacitated.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Nah, I completely disagree. One of the origins of the basilisk is the cobra. You are walking along, minding your own business and WHAM you are dead.

Here we definitely agree. I think random accidents and tragedies like that have no place in game rules. They may have a place in the game world, but if you use them, because you want them to be part of your story.

Or, maybe, if you really want them, as part of an optional modular extension. If 5E is supposed to be that modular system, this is exactly the type of stuff I don't want to have in the core system and be used by "accident". I want someone to read through that as optional material and read and think about the implications fully, not accepting it as for granted and "because it's in the rules, it must be okay to use".

 

[mmadsen]

I prefer the straight hp approach though. HP are luck/skill/whatever, and you can't die until they are exhausted. It's simple and straightforward.

We should consider when hit points come into play. Having all plot-protection come into effect only after a to-hit roll is made means that they're countered by big weapons that do a lot of "damage" -- whatever that means -- and they have no effect on whether you get hit in the first place, whether you're turned to stone, etc.

If hit point come into play before any other rolls, then no other stats matter -- until the bitter end, when the hit points have run out.

I think it makes the most sense to allow hit points to modify any defensive roll, after the fact, so they can represent dodging the giant's club or shaking off the goblin's sling-stone, or overcoming the poison, or magic, or whatever -- but characters without plot protection can still be tough, or strong-willed, or hard to hit, etc.

 

[Aldarc]

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

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?

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 am not rejecting anything. You are. Learning from D&D's past does not mean that WotC should ignore improvements made in 4E or pretend that everything about 4E was wrong or that WotC should basically just redesign everything to be D&D 3.75 to cater to your preferences. Where does D&D Next's design goals say that the game is being designed to appeal strictly to players of 1-3e? (Let me be clear, I do not play 4E, nor do I particularly care for Pathfinder and 3.5. After extended play of these systems, I think all of these systems have a number of weak points that do not entirely meet my expectations of a more simplified and flexible system. D&D Next, if the Legends & Lore articles and D&D Next design goals are any indication, has the potential of getting much closer to my preferences.) Do you honestly think that Save-or-Die is the only problem people had with 4E? Do you honestly think that if 3.5 was the same but did not have Save-or-Die that it would have lost as many people as 4E? Of course not. It's absurd to think that. So why make a barb that Save-or-Die is somehow mandatory for D&D Next as if it was responsible for 4E's failures? My goal is a much bigger fan base than 4E had as well, which means to keep to D&D Next's stated design goals:

"...to create a rule set that enables players of all types and styles to play a D&D game together by taking the best of each edition and getting at the soul of what D&D is." - Mike Mearls.

D&D Next is bigger than strictly your preferences, as it is bigger than mine.

"With fourth edition, there was a huge focus on mechanics. The story was still there, but a lot of our customers were having trouble getting to it. In some ways, it was like we told people, ‘The right way to play guitar is to play thrash metal,’ But there’s other ways to play guitar.” - Mike Mearls.

BryonD: No one likes being told that there is only one right way to play guitar, and that includes with Save-or-Die.

"The new edition is being conceived of as a modular, flexible system, easily customized to individual preferences. Just like a player makes his character, the Dungeon Master can make his ruleset. He might say ‘I’m going to run a military campaign, it’s going to be a lot of fighting’… so he’d use the combat chapter, drop in miniatures rules, and include the martial arts optional rules.” - Mike Mearls.

Tell me how absolutism about Save-or-Die and my advocating for a lethality dials approach compares with these design goals?

Who said it had to?

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.

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.

This is the absolute language to which I object. This strikes me as just "true Scotsman," in which "no true Medusa would not instantly turn victims into stone and not have Save-or-Die mechanics." Why can't my Medusa not if I so deem it for my campaign? Why are you telling people that thrash metal is the only correct way to play guitar? Your language is antithetical to the stated design goals, and that is why I object to your absolute language, because I find it every bit as antithetical to D&D Next's design goals as the complete absence of Save-or-Die mechanics. It's exclusionary and not inclusionary.

 

[Fanaelialae]

We should consider when hit points come into play. Having all plot-protection come into effect only after a to-hit roll is made means that they're countered by big weapons that do a lot of "damage" -- whatever that means -- and they have no effect on whether you get hit in the first place, whether you're turned to stone, etc.

If hit point come into play before any other rolls, then no other stats matter -- until the bitter end, when the hit points have run out.

I think it makes the most sense to allow hit points to modify any defensive roll, after the fact, so they can represent dodging the giant's club or shaking off the goblin's sling-stone, or overcoming the poison, or magic, or whatever -- but characters without plot protection can still be tough, or strong-willed, or hard to hit, etc.

That sounds like it's simply taking damage equal to the difference between the attack roll and your defense +1, and that's certainly one way to go, though damage will likely be confined to a fairly limited range unless attack bonus scales while defenses don't.

I'm fine with metaphysical "plot" protection. Yes, a dagger will kill you as dead as a sword or a giant's club in realistic terms. But, assuming there are balancing measures, I don't have an issue with a sword dealing more damage than a dagger to keep things interesting. Almost caught a glance of the medusa (you were hit but didn't take enough damage from her gaze attack)? Death is nonetheless looming a little bit closer as a result.

HP have never been very realistic, but they're both simple and exciting (at least when you're low) which makes them effective! I think part of that may be the absence of a death spiral. When your in the single digits, you're hard up but you're still in the game. In poker terms, you may be low on chips but you can still play a great hand and stay in the game. Death spirals (IME), to use the poker analogy, force you to play with less than a full hand, meaning that once your chips are low your chances of staying in the game become slim to none.

 

[Aenghus]

I hate Save or Dies with a passion. They are the essence of unbalanced. As other people have said if a sword or arrow cant achieve a one hit kill because of hp why should a spell?

As a player, Save or dies produce anticlimactic fights when the player casts them and they work, or do very little if they don't. Against players they make the game too deadly for my taste.

Also many referees fudge Save or Dies in both directions. I know referees who make automatic saves for monsters targetted by SoDs at the start of a fight, much of the time.

So I would prefer an option not to use them in 5e.

 

[Izumi]

Too many people fear death, but you can't be heroic without the threat of it looming from every shadow in the darkness. Save or Die is really exciting. However, throwing creatures capable of it randomly is the wrong approach. They should have warning it exists, and the means to defeat the threat by clever play. I always wanted to hide behind that column as Medusa approached...

As far as save or die in melee, the hit point abstraction already covers that. Some warriors have instincts, and just aren't easily surprised by that assassin. They leap away, getting a knife across the arm instead. Then they roll their poison save, of course.

 

[mmadsen]

This strikes me as just "true Scotsman," in which "no true Medusa would not instantly turn victims into stone and not have Save-or-Die mechanics." Why can't my Medusa not if I so deem it for my campaign?

I don't consider it a no true Scotsman fallacy when someone says that the defining feature of Medusa is that she turns anyone who looks at her to stone.

You're free to do what you want, of course, but a "medusa" that doesn't petrify people doesn't seem like a medusa to most people. If you want something different from the iconic original, it's fine to go in a different direction, but that's an unusual goal.

 

[mmadsen]

That sounds like it's simply taking damage equal to the difference between the attack roll and your defense +1, and that's certainly one way to go, though damage will likely be confined to a fairly limited range unless attack bonus scales while defenses don't.

The point is that such "damage" wouldn't be limited to wounds from physical threats that hit. If you fail a Ref save by a large margin, you have the option to spend a lot of plot-protection points to avoid ever getting hit, or you can accept the hit and then try to make your Fort save to avoid going down.

Most of a character's extra resilience would come in the form of higher saves. Plot-protection points would just make sure they fulfill their destiny -- or come closer.

I'm fine with metaphysical "plot" protection. Yes, a dagger will kill you as dead as a sword or a giant's club in realistic terms. But, assuming there are balancing measures, I don't have an issue with a sword dealing more damage than a dagger to keep things interesting.

A giant's club would still do more damage than a sword or dagger under such a system. It might not force a harder Ref save, but it would force a harder Fort save on a hit.

Almost caught a glance of the medusa (you were hit but didn't take enough damage from her gaze attack)? Death is nonetheless looming a little bit closer as a result.

Exactly. You're not hurt by barely avoiding Medusa's gaze, but you've used up a bit of your luck.

HP have never been very realistic, but they're both simple and exciting (at least when you're low) which makes them effective! I think part of that may be the absence of a death spiral.

I think the whole notion of a death spiral only came up because so many people were frustrated with the image of a high-level character shrugging off a half-dozen sword and spear hits -- that overcame his armor! -- and being no worse for wear.

There isn't much call for a death spiral when characters aren't getting hit and wounded repeatedly.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have not had a chance to read all the pages yet but I think they need to have save vs death in some form in the game. There should be a way to add it to the game for people who want it and tone it down for people who don't want it. the options could be right there in the spell description of effects.

Personally I don't understand the idea of it sucks because I came to play and now I don't get to because my character is dead. There are other ways to die in the game other spells can kill and weapons kill.

this is one of those things that can be handled my dials for lethality let the group decide how lethal they want their game to be.

 

[avin]

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.

Absolutely, yes. And fall from higher ground should kill. Down with the menthality where only magic is save or die.

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).

Color me as a not big fan of this but, for certain monsters, it must exist. There's no such thing as a Medusa that does not petrify. It's like level draining monsters, I hate them, so I avoid them.

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.

Agreed, so I think there must be save or die for all of them.

Stuff.

Can't spread more XP today

I'd like save or die to come back for some iconic monsters.

DMs who dislike them should avoid them, it worked for me.

Not only casters should have save or die stuff. A knife on the eye should kill as much as a Power Word Kill.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't consider it a no true Scotsman fallacy when someone says that the defining feature of Medusa is that she turns anyone who looks at her to stone.

You're free to do what you want, of course, but a "medusa" that doesn't petrify people doesn't seem like a medusa to most people. If you want something different from the iconic original, it's fine to go in a different direction, but that's an unusual goal.

It's more a matter of the attitude that "it's either Save-or-Die petrification or it's not a medusa" that I find the "true Scotsman." I find that attitude in line with what Mearls was talking about with how he felt that 4E was telling people that the only way to play guitar is thrash metal.

I have not had a chance to read all the pages yet but I think they need to have save vs death in some form in the game. There should be a way to add it to the game for people who want it and tone it down for people who don't want it. the options could be right there in the spell description of effects.
....
this is one of those things that can be handled my dials for lethality let the group decide how lethal they want their game to be.

This is entirely reasonable and what most reasonable people who understand the D&D Next design goals are asking for.

Personally I don't understand the idea of it sucks because I came to play and now I don't get to because my character is dead. There are other ways to die in the game other spells can kill and weapons kill.

For many people, it's the "one-unlucky-roll" aspect. There is dying through attrition in combat, and then there is dying a "red shirt death."

 

[Elf Witch]

For many people, it's the "one-unlucky-roll" aspect. There is dying through attrition in combat, and then there is dying a "red shirt death."

I can understand that. And why some people don't like it.

I lost a favorite character to a troll who ripped her apart in one round I was at full hit points then I was dead no save involved. So I see that possibility of being killed like that as part of the game.

It is why I really want to see a way to adapt the game to different levels sometimes I want a real down and dirty gritty game and other times I don't I really want it hard for the PCs to die.

 

[Aldarc]

I can understand that. And why some people don't like it.

I lost a favorite character to a troll who ripped her apart in one round I was at full hit points then I was dead no save involved. So I see that possibility of being killed like that as part of the game.

It is why I really want to see a way to adapt the game to different levels sometimes I want a real down and dirty gritty game and other times I don't I really want it hard for the PCs to die.

I think we are on the same page. WotC claims that the lessons from the OGL and GSL have not gone unnoticed. If WotC wants to minimize the number of alternate system competitors in the market that provide non-Vancian systems, lack save-or-die, and allow players to run different styles of campaigns, then they will need to provide these various options within the game itself and not be exclusionary with certain hardline aspects.

 

[Lanefan]

How do you all feel about save-or-die when both you-as-player and you-as-character know it's (potentially) coming, as opposed to a random surprise event?

Last night's game is a fine example. We've been told we're up against a huge ancient Red Dragon (and have for some reason contractually obligated ourselves to kill it), we've taken all kinds of precautions, and into its lair we go. And on our way in it breathes on all of us for enough damage that a failed save would insta-kill every party member (and we're a huge party!) except one. Normally, that's save-or-die all round; however our precautions - e.g. fire resistance for all - mitigated this enough that in most cases a failed save only hurt a whole lot....which is a good thing as our rolls were awful.

Is this acceptable? Also, would it be acceptable to unleash hell if the party had failed to heed the warnings? [my answer is yes to both, by the way]

Oh, and to finish the story: my guy still died in this one: he made his save vs. the breath but then had the dragon - all ten-or-so tons of it - crash land on him when the party shot it down. I finished at -74.

Lan-"another one bites the dust"-efan

 

[ferratus]

I have a lot less problems with save or die if it isn't a matter of random spell selection or a random monster.

If the monster is a legendary creature like Orcus, who you know can destroy you in a single act, then I don't have a problem with it. Especially since you are fighting him at a time when the campaign is either going to be over anyway, or you are so powerful that death has lost a lot of its sting.

Otherwise if a creature can kill you with a single action, it should be rare, feared and famous enough that its reputation of its deadliness spreads far and wide. Any creature that spreads death with a thought, touch or look should be thought of as close to the gods as far as I'm concerned.

If players have it, I mostly don't like save or die when it comes to climactic battles and set pieces. On shlub monsters below the character's level I don't mind so much.

In fact, this might be a solution to the minion problem. If monster HD is 5-10 levels below you, a save or die effect upon a hit would be an excellent way to speed up combat without the problems of monsters having 1 hp. Certainly if a monster is 10 levels below you in D&D 1e-3e you are probably nearly 1 shot killing them anyway. With save or die, there would just be less book keeping.

 

[Stormonu]

How do you all feel about save-or-die when both you-as-player and you-as-character know it's (potentially) coming, as opposed to a random surprise event?

Knowing whether its coming or not, for me, isn't the issue. For me, the issue is it happens.

I'd rather not let one bad roll, whether I knew the effect was coming or not, kill a PC/NPC. It's harder to stop when it's just accrued damage > hp, but it's certainly too easy when it's one failed roll = death. Mitigating it to multiple checks helps with the latter, but there's currently no way to deal with former.

It's sort of the reason I like bennies in the Savage World game. You can use bennies (hero points, luck points, whatever you want to call them) to keep your character or for the DM to legally keep NPCs in the game for longer - or to help them get off their special abilities so they don't look such a wimp when it fails and they get canned.

I don't think hero points should be a Core D&D rule, but I definitely think it should be an option presented in Core. In this way, you could have a save-or-suck system as default and at least one option to opt-out.

However, my preference would be for there to be a 3-saves-and-your-out save-or-die system in core, with an option noted that if you want a deadlier game you can switch it to one-save-to-terminal-effect, and if you want to soften it, throw in the option of hero points.

 

[GSHamster]

5E needs Alternate Win Conditions. But they need to be a lot more playable than Save or Die. There should be gameplay aspects in trying to avoid the oncoming doom.

For example, instead of a straight save-or-die Power Word: Death spell, maybe the spell summons a Grim Reaper who can move 10 or 20 feet round towards the target. If the Reaper catches the target, the target is slain.

This spell avoids hitpoints, it can kill a PC who's at full health. But the PC can avoid her death through gameplay. Avoiding her death might cause other problems, but that's the fun.