Ok, explain please.I think you could do both equally good in either edition.
You are mixing mechanical and narrative comments here, so it is a bit hard to provide a simple reply.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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: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?
D&D Next is bigger than strictly your preferences, as it is bigger than mine."...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.
BryonD: No one likes being told that there is only one right way to play guitar, and that includes with Save-or-Die."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.
Tell me how absolutism about Save-or-Die and my advocating for a lethality dials approach compares with these design goals?"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.
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.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.
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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
Exactly. You're not hurt by barely avoiding Medusa's gaze, but you've used up a bit of your luck.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.
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.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 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.
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).
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.
Stuff.
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 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.
This is entirely reasonable and what most reasonable people who understand the D&D Next design goals are asking for.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.
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."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."
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.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.
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?