Should we remove randomness from D&D?

[Cadfan]

And the population of straw town decreases by one man.

 

[ThirdWizard]

"Roll well on a d20 or die" is boring because it isn't interactive. A typical combat at 15th level against a well played NPC spellcaster will almost inevitably end in death for one or more PCs just because that's the way the game works. I can understant Mearls's distaste for this particular aspect of D&D.

Dying of HP loss, ability damage, level drain, etc. is exciting becuase you can see it coming and can take measures to try to save yourself. There's tension and suspense as you try to avoid your fate, either through trying to run away, healing, taking cover, or other actions. Then, when you do die, the tension has built up to a climax, and its exciting. "Roll well on a d20 or die" is just that. Roll that d20 or die. There's no buildup, no excitement, no climax.

In short, its boring.

 

[Ranger REG]

Well, in a perfect world, both. rycanada said it best. If the feeling is "Man, we did everything we could and the dice didn't pan out" than there is still fun to be had. However, hinging everything on a single die roll (or a series of exceptionally high ones) removes the planning out and settles ONLY for the random element.

Consider Disintegrate. Up till 3.5, Disintegrate was a save or die spell. In 3.0, it was ranged touch, fort save or poof. Now, a character with a lot of hp, a descent touch AC, SR, or a great fort can survive the spell. This makes the spell more fun; a raging barbarian, a monk, or a githzerai can all avoid it or survive it. Compare to (say) Finger of Death: Fort save or death. You've now hinged on one die roll (two, SR). Only High fort PCs have a chance, one chance, to survive.

Yeah, well. It's kinda hard to put the fear of death to a high-level PC with triple-digit HP. Finger of Death would make them think twice.

 

[pawsplay]

There is no fundamental difference between "save or die" and "if I hit, you will take more damage than you can soak."

The logical outcome of removing save or die from games is removing 1st level orc warrios from the game, in case they accidentally wipe out a first level PC.

 

[Storyteller01]

Without dice rolls, our cleruc of fate wouldn't have anything to tweak!!

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Save or die is a gift. Your PC is in a situation that should mean his death, and the saving throw is a last ditch chance for him to pull through it. The glass is half full!

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

There is no fundamental difference between "save or die" and "if I hit, you will take more damage than you can soak."

The logical outcome of removing save or die from games is removing 1st level orc warrios from the game, in case they accidentally wipe out a first level PC.

Damage is unfun and not fair. Monsters should deal out hugs instead.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Damage is unfun and not fair. Monsters should deal out hugs instead.

Or Care Bear Stares...

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Or Care Bear Stares...

Well the Stare does 1d6 per Care Level to those of Evil alignment. It can be devastating.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, well. It's kinda hard to put the fear of death to a high-level PC with triple-digit HP. Finger of Death would make them think twice.

True, but at high level, it seems its the ONLY thing that puts the fear of god in them. The problem is that the uber-powerful FoD that can get past a 15th lvl raging barbarian's fort save makes mince-meat out of our 15th level elf wizard.

Another example: A deathshrieker (MM3, CR15) has a DC 26 will save or be deafened, stunned, then insane. A high level wizard or cleric might make that save with no problem (assuming averages, will +9 without wis or magic) but our poor fighter or rogue (base +5 without wis or magic) has no chance in hell of making that short of a natural 20.

Roll well or die.

On any given HL save, 1/2 the party is taken out of the fight. 1/2 the party does nothing while those blessed with good saves do all the heavy lifting. My definition of Unfun.