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.