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

[beej]

The last time I saw save-or-die, Cedric Diggory turned into Edward Cullen.

</lame joke>

Certainly, the threat of death should be present in D&D. But save-or-die isn't the only way to do it. I liked the slow, soul-draining death caused by Ashavona (4E demilich, free from WotC here). Massively damaging powers are cool, too. I also like the elegance of Power Word Kill, in that it's an instadeath but requires the target to be below a certain amount of hitpoints first (indicating a few rounds before it can be used).

And it also goes both ways. As a DM, one of my pet peeves in 3.5 is when you are caught off-guard and an important NPC is attacked by a PC's save-or-die spell.

4E's a strange thing. It got rid of save-or-die's and at the same time, granted epic PC's in particular to cheat death 1/day. On the other end of the stick, what do epic monsters get? Just higher numbers, apparently, and the occasional stun effect (and even that has been toned down).

Basically, my opinion is that monster lethality (or pure badarserry) should be directly proportional to the survivability of PCs on the same level. I don't want save-versus death in levels where a spiked pit trap can kill the characters anyway. I want save-or-die's in levels where it can be circumvented by PCs.

 

[Izumi]

Face the possibility of save versus death. Make a heroic story. You character will always live on in the funny song you wrote of his misfortune. The good guys don't always win.

Old Japanese Proverb: Ichi go Ichi e = One moment, One chance.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This is largely why I advocate that lethality dials for monsters that allow DMs to adjust the lethality of particular monster abilities as appropriate. But I think that it's easier if the rules have you turn the lethality setting up than it is to turn it down.

rather than per-monster dials, I think that an appropriate mechanism would be to provide the DM with 'campaign settings' toggles - like those available in spy craft 2.0, that allow the gm to dial the wahoo up or down to fit different genres.

 

[Aldarc]

rather than per-monster dials, I think that an appropriate mechanism would be to provide the DM with 'campaign settings' toggles - like those available in spy craft 2.0, that allow the gm to dial the wahoo up or down to fit different genres.

That also works just as well, if not better, for me.

 

[Stalker0]

My issue with save or die is that I don't see any mechanical need for them. We already have a mechanic to kill things, its called damage. Save or dies bypasses the hitpoint mechanic, when they could simply do a lot of damage.

As long as higher level characters are jump off a cliff and expect to live (of which personally I have no problems with), then I don't see why a fighter can't take a finger of death and stay alive.

 

[Lanefan]

As long as higher level characters are jump off a cliff and expect to live (of which personally I have no problems with), then I don't see why a fighter can't take a finger of death and stay alive.

Where I see jumping (or being pushed) off a high cliff as a pretty good way of provoking a save-or-die on the spot, assuming no featherfall or other such niceties are available.

And a fighter *can* take a finger of death and stay alive - if she makes her save.

Lanefan

 

[Li Shenron]

I would accept save-or-die effects to be turned into multiple-saves-or-die.

Thus a disintegration or petrification spell that doesn't kill you if you fail one save, but only if you fail X saves (in a row or not). I think it would be cool if this would be described as the petrification taking effect first on the arm, then spread slowly as the PC tries to resist

What I don't want to see is save-or-die spells turned into plain damage or temporary penalty.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My issue with save or die is that I don't see any mechanical need for them. We already have a mechanic to kill things, its called damage. Save or dies bypasses the hitpoint mechanic, when they could simply do a lot of damage.

As long as higher level characters are jump off a cliff and expect to live (of which personally I have no problems with), then I don't see why a fighter can't take a finger of death and stay alive.

It could be worse. You could invent, say... hero points and allow people to reroll save or die rolls.
Basically, you now have hit points and hero points. And they both do the same thing!

Where I see jumping (or being pushed) off a high cliff as a pretty good way of provoking a save-or-die on the spot, assuming no featherfall or other such niceties are available.

Why does he get a save in the first place? Is it really "more" realistic to have a Fighter fall from 500 ft height and have a 35 % chance of survival (or more)?

I am just reminded of the SR3 rules for falling. A fall had a damage level of deadly, regardless of distance. That meant that a "common" person has probably about a 50 % chance to die if he fell from a height of 2 meters.

You fall into lava, you die. No save. You fall 500 ft. You die. No save. You actually look The Medusa in the eyes, you turn to stone. No save.

Actually, one could distinguish things - falling from 500 ft? You die. There is nothing you could conceivable do barring magical items and spells for that purpose to save yourself. Nothing. Medusa-Eye-Gazing - well, you could try to avert or close your eyes in time. Maybe that could be represented by a save. But does it have to be "Save or Petrification"? Or could it be "Save or tons of hit point damage" representing that you needed to expend a lot of luck to not be petriefied (and if you are reduced to 0 hit points, of course you're petrified. HP = 0 => your luck failed you). Do we even need a save at all then, and can we just say "hit point damage that can turn you to stone if you get reduced to 0?)
Depending on the damage and your NPC rules, the average commoner and even many adventurers could still consider a Medusa as auto-petrifying enemy. If you only got 4 hit points, 40 damage is enough to petrify you.

 

[chaochou]

I think if they scaled back hit points in 5e they could produce a save and die effect without a save or die mechanic.

For example, you could have a simple 'all or nothing' rule for certain attacks. Say a medusa has a 10d8 'all or nothing' petrifying gaze. Roll 'to hit' (in effect to try to catch the eye of a viable target). Roll damage. If that damage puts you below 0hp, it's statue time. If not, it has no effect.

That kind of idea scales to level (since your hp are acting as a secondary save) without adding mechanical overhead to the game. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of hp as saving throws.

However, I'm not advocating precisely this system. I just think there must be simple mechanical options which sit somewhere between 'dead in a dice roll' and 'petrified for a round'.

Edit: cross-posted with a similar idea from the dude above.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

A different approach: keep save of die, but provide a workaround. I ran a campaign where I provided players "Hero Points" which could be expended to guarantee success on anything that involved a die roll, or guarantee failure for an opponent's die roll. So in the case of a save-or-die effect, if they didn't want to trust the dice, they could burn a Hero Point to avoid the situation.

I like save-or-die, for all the iconic reasons mentioned. We tend to forget that even when you take out "save or die", until 4E the game still had a default "no save and die" baseline -- when your 4 hp wizard got hit by the orc barbarian's greataxe and took 16 hp damage, you died, no save.

That said, I like Pilgrim's suggestion -- build each of the save-or-die effects with two options to enable either style of play, because I appreciate that a large body of gamers does not find save-or-die fun.

 

[avin]

I would accept save-or-die effects to be turned into multiple-saves-or-die.

Thus a disintegration or petrification spell that doesn't kill you if you fail one save, but only if you fail X saves (in a row or not). I think it would be cool if this would be described as the petrification taking effect first on the arm, then spread slowly as the PC tries to resist.

I think this issue, Save or Die or not, it's not hard to implement in a modular game.

Option Rule 1 could be save or die for Petrification.

Option Rule Rule 2 could be save or be petrified for X rounds. If you fail a second save at the end of that time, or aren't helped by another spell/potion/scroll, you die.

Options.

 

[keterys]

For example, you could have a simple 'all or nothing' rule for certain attacks. Say a medusa has a 10d8 'all or nothing' petrifying gaze. Roll 'to hit' (in effect to try to catch the eye of a viable target). Roll damage. If that damage puts you below 0hp, it's statue time. If not, it has no effect.

Yep, that's a fun design space. In Buffy, for example, when you stake a vampire in the heart you compare your potential damage (pretty huge) to its remaining health. If greater than, you staked it, it dies. If not, you hit it somewhere else and it takes normal "not in the heart" damage.

So you can apply the same thing to disintegrate rays, medusa gaze, mind flayer gnawing on a skull, or whatever.

Which fits the genre fine, too. A back a forth struggle that ends with the cool "And you die" - not starts right off the bat with it, ending the combat before anything interesting happens. Unless you're a nobody, in which case, bam, right off the bat.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think this issue, Save or Die or not, it's not hard to implement in a modular game.

Option Rule 1 could be save or die for Petrification.

Option Rule Rule 2 could be save or be petrified for X rounds. If you fail a second save at the end of that time, or aren't helped by another spell/potion/scroll, you die.

Options.

Yes, I was too wondering if the game could work with different options in this case.

I had in mind something involving letting the DM choosing how many saves are granted before death.

The problem is that by allowing these options, then the spell(s) don't have a unique level for balancing them against other spells, so that also a level adjustment would be needed.

Maybe, if the designers get such level adjustment right... it could work like this:

- redefine previously save-or-die spells as to now allowing e.g. N saves instead of 1 before killing the character
- introducing a metamagic feat (or whatever works in the edition) which decreases the number of saves before death by 1 in exhange for +L spell level increase, applicable multiple times
- tell the DM that she can either:

(1) disallow such feat, i.e. all those spells are save-in-N-attempts-or-die
(2) allow such feat, i.e. each player chooses
(3) make such feat applied by default to all relevant spells, i.e. all are save-or-die but LxN level higher

...but it would be essential to get those N and L number rights

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Actually, one could distinguish things - falling from 500 ft? You die. There is nothing you could conceivable do barring magical items and spells for that purpose to save yourself. Nothing.

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.

 

[Hassassin]

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.

Now suppose the whole party falls from thousands of feet?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Now suppose the whole party falls from thousands of feet?

They most likely all die. But there should be some small chance of survival. Say, a nat 20 on a save.

 

[mmadsen]

It could be worse. You could invent, say... hero points and allow people to reroll save or die rolls.

Basically, you now have hit points and hero points. And they both do the same thing!

Or you could redefine hit points to be hero points.

Why does he get a save in the first place? Is it really "more" realistic to have a Fighter fall from 500 ft height and have a 35 % chance of survival (or more)?

I don't know where the 35-percent figure came from, but falling a great distance is not certain death -- and in a game like D&D, rounding a one-percent chance of survival up to 1-in-20 seems reasonable.

 

[BryonD]

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.

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

 

[unan oranis]

The fair thing would be for the "save-or-die" mechanic to have a taste of it's own medicine.

On a roll of 9 or lower, the designers leave it out.


I rolled... a five! I'm a fan of save-or-die! Nooo! I've played that rule for twenty years! Countless hours down the crapper!

 

[ferratus]

That's the best idea I've heard in my life.

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. 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.

I know that you enjoy your style of play, just like I enjoy playing my character, but sometimes abrupt and tragic things happen in the real world. If you fail, all you'd have to do is roll up a new playstyle. Sure your fun will be spoiled momentarily, just like my fun is spoiled by having my PC die by an arbitrary bit of bad luck, but don't get so hung up on it. You shouldn't need to be coddled or be afraid of losing one rules mechanic.

(I'm genuinely curious to see who has the stones).