SoD, how can we accommodate everyone?

[Oni]

Because it got lost in the noise, I'll repost my answer to your question:

Personally, I'd prefer to see a "Save or Die in One Turn" system. You fail your save, you have one round for you or your party to do something to save you. Failing that, you're done.

This keeps the sense of unpredictability and danger that Save or Die mechanics give the game, while also injecting a sense of urgency--and a forced change of tactics.

At the same time, it improves the chance of survival of the party and adds a measure of fairness to the Save or Die mechanics (all without destroying the unpredictability or sense of danger).

I've been thinking about this one and I think with a little tweak you could make this into a really interesting mechanic, that while different from previous iterations of D&D could bring some nice tension to the table.

Let's say that most SoD spells and effects have a grace period (you could alter this from 1-3, or even more, rounds either to alter the flavor of the ability or the general lethality of the game). However instead of making the save at the beginning of the grace period, you make the save at the end, so the outcome of not acting is unknown. Actions could do anything from give a bonus to the saving to extending the grace period to canceling the effect all together, it's possible baddies might even be able to perform actions to supplement the SoD effect. The grace period itself may or more not come with a debuff depending on the nature of the SoD as it sets about it's work.

For example Finger of Death might be first round -2 to actions due to pain, next round dazed as the life starts to pull loose from your body, final round stunned as you do nothing but gasp and clutch your chest, then save versus the death effect. Maybe a save bonus could be garnered with a good heal check, or it could be canceled with a dispel or deathward, by killing the caster before it full takes effect, et c.

You could put all sorts of interesting little twist on them, like maybe one the requires concentration (probably has nasty per round effect like stat damage or something), or grapple, or hooked to the life of the caster to complete, for something slower acting ones maybe a part of the creature is needed to undo the effect (like to make an anti venom for a slow acting poison).

 

[Hussar]

You assuming a great deal there.

I guess I'd like you to demonstrate that I've used a double standard or retract the claim as unfounded.

You insist that medusas MUST follow myth. You insist that myth trumps mechanics. Your words correct?

Yet, when presented with the myth of the banshee, apparently mechanics trump myth. Characters who hear a banshee do not automatically die, despite that being the myth. Yet, you insist that characters who see a medusa MUST turn to stone.

How is this not a double standard? Which is it? Myth before mechanics or mechanics before myth? Or is it closer to myth before mechanics when it's convenient for whatever argument you want to make, and mechanics first the rest of the time?

 

[BryonD]

You insist that medusas MUST follow myth. You insist that myth trumps mechanics. Your words correct?
Yet, when presented with the myth of the banshee, apparently mechanics trump myth. Characters who hear a banshee do not automatically die, despite that being the myth. Yet, you insist that characters who see a medusa MUST turn to stone.
How is this not a double standard? Which is it? Myth before mechanics or mechanics before myth? Or is it closer to myth before mechanics when it's convenient for whatever argument you want to make, and mechanics first the rest of the time?

1) In order to “be” Medusa it must follow myth. In order to “be” a banshee it must follow myth. No contradiction or double standard.
2) Myth before mechanics for Medusa. Myth before mechanics for Banshee. No contradiction or double standard.
3) If you look at Medusa you are affected by an instant effect, both in myth and in my game. If you hear a banshee you are inflicted by a curse that will quickly bring about your death, both in myth and in my game. No contradiction or double standard.
4) In both the Medusa and Banshee myths the results are irrevocable. I have never suggested that Flesh to Stone does not work in my D&D games. It would be unreasonable to presume anything other than that it does work in the conversation of a D&D game. The Medusa works exactly as myth but outside of that event other actions can undo the effect. This does nothing whatsoever to undermine the fact that Medusa still worked just like the myth. The Banshee works exactly as myth. But outside the action of hearing and being cursed to die VERY SOON the curse may be removed by any of the normal options and/or the character may die but be restored to life by any of the normal means. No contradiction or double standard.
5) The Medusa myth is very specific. You turn to stone. (Turn to Stone by ELO is playing on Itunes as I type…) The Banshee myth is far more open ended. Both have a clear cause and a clear final effect. I enforce both for each. The fact that I have liberty to tinker with the in between parts in the Banshee case does nothing to change the fact that the defined absolutes of the myth are retained. No contradiction or double standard.
6) I clearly stated in at least a couple posts that having another monster that is inspired by Medusa is completely acceptable It wouldn’t be “Medusa” but it may be a great and related monster. If you call it Medusa then I will disagree. If you call it cool I may agree. There are a number of published “Banshee” creatures that I consider to be “cool” monsters very much inspired by the banshee but not “the banshee”. If you call it “the banshee” then I will disagree. No contradiction or double standard.

Do you retract your claims?

 

[Hussar]

So, if your PC's hear a banshee, do not receive a "Remove Curse" before a certain period of time, do you declare them dead?

You write lots of words, but, that's what it comes down to. Do you allow a saving throw vs Banshee?

 

[hikaizer]

2nd Edition has a Save vs. Death save (which admittedly does cover other conditions as well) but perhaps making it a separate save could work? You could have your Death Save + relevant Ability Score (so Intelligence for a spell for example, Strength to avoid being crushed, Constitution to survive poison). Then you make the SoD effects have two components: a base effect and then the added SoD effect. If you fail the Death Save then obviously the first effect is rather irrelevant, but if you pass you still either take another effect or make another save check.

I think though that making it optional is the wisest idea with the paradigm they've discussed so much. If you're building your system on modularity it's a good option to capture the traditional feel of DnD.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'm not a fan of using Medusa's instant death petrification as a standard for D&D. Really, it makes for a terrible game experience. Either you don't know it's coming, at which point you open a door, Medusa turns around, and everyone is petrified, or you do know it is coming and everyone is 100% prepared to deal with it with little risk. I don't like things that are that binary in games. There are times where following myth just doesn't lead to a fun game, and having a fun game is far more important than blind loyalty to myth. It's not like you get a free Pegasus and instant-death medusa head item every time you kill a medusa in D&D, after all...

Anyways, I'm mostly of the opinion that, if you have to have save-or-die in the game, then it should not be an easy shortcut around the game's normal death mechanics. Casting an instant death spell should not be easier than dealing a lot of HP damage (3E got this so wrong...). At the very least, it should be roughly equivalent in effectiveness and survivability to some other risk of death. For example, it is mostly fair for a 4E death effect to kill in three failed saves, because a character dying from HP damage will die in three failed saves. Requiring any fewer number of saves for an instant death effect just messes up game balance pointlessly.

 

[BryonD]

So, if your PC's hear a banshee, do not receive a "Remove Curse" before a certain period of time, do you declare them dead?

No

Declaring them dead would be the height of boring.
They *WILL* die, and both the player and the character know it. But it will be far more interesting than a simple declaration.

You write lots of words, but, that's what it comes down to. Do you allow a saving throw vs Banshee?

Whether or not myth trumps mechanics now comes down to "is a saving throw allowed"? That isn't exactly a thoughtful position.


And you have written very few words and exactly zero that back up your claims about how my game works and double standards on my part. Yet again we have Hussar basing his position on telling me what my own thoughts are and how my game works.

If you had the slightest drop of evidence that mechanics trumped myth or that I was using any form of double standard then you would have offered it by now. And yet you just can't bring yourself to retract your claim. shrug

 

[BryonD]

I'm not a fan of using Medusa's instant death petrification as a standard for D&D. Really, it makes for a terrible game experience.

I've got no dispute with anyone over what makes a great or terrible experience for them.

Will you agree when I say it makes an awesome experience for me and watering it down or doing something unrelated to the myth is a terrible experience for me?

Knowing you lived through something that should have killed you, but only because the rules ignored how the myth works then it becomes really hollow victory.

And you can never overcome a threat you never face.

Either you don't know it's coming, at which point you open a door, Medusa turns around, and everyone is petrified, or you do know it is coming and everyone is 100% prepared to deal with it with little risk. I don't like things that are that binary in games.

If this is happening in your game then it sounds like a DM issue to me. There have been medusa encounters five or six times in the past several years in my games. Your binary options have not been the case.

I can think of a case of someone getting surprised by a basilisk and insta-stoned. And I certainly don't claim that either of your two scenarios could not happen. But I completely dispute the claim that it is automatically one or the other.

There are times where following myth just doesn't lead to a fun game, and having a fun game is far more important than blind loyalty to myth. It's not like you get a free Pegasus and instant-death medusa head item every time you kill a medusa in D&D, after all...

There is a huge difference between recreating the characteristics of the elements of myth and recreating the actual narrative of the myth. The whole point is creating your own new narrative with those elements.

Anyways, I'm mostly of the opinion that, if you have to have save-or-die in the game, then it should not be an easy shortcut around the game's normal death mechanics. Casting an instant death spell should not be easier than dealing a lot of HP damage (3E got this so wrong...). At the very least, it should be roughly equivalent in effectiveness and survivability to some other risk of death. For example, it is mostly fair for a 4E death effect to kill in three failed saves, because a character dying from HP damage will die in three failed saves. Requiring any fewer number of saves for an instant death effect just messes up game balance pointlessly.

This gets down to the whole "gamism" argument.

To me the experience of the story is the key foundation. You are making mechanics and balance trump that. Which may be the heart of fun for you. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just pointing out the difference.

Messing up "balance" in order to get the story right is not only far from pointless, to me it is the point itself.

 

[Oni]

Anyways, I'm mostly of the opinion that, if you have to have save-or-die in the game, then it should not be an easy shortcut around the game's normal death mechanics. Casting an instant death spell should not be easier than dealing a lot of HP damage (3E got this so wrong...). At the very least, it should be roughly equivalent in effectiveness and survivability to some other risk of death. For example, it is mostly fair for a 4E death effect to kill in three failed saves, because a character dying from HP damage will die in three failed saves. Requiring any fewer number of saves for an instant death effect just messes up game balance pointlessly.

Yeah, but how would you accommodate both in the same rules set, since some people do like it and this is supposed to be the edition for everyone. That was the challenge of the thread after all.

 

[Hassassin]

I'm not a fan of using Medusa's instant death petrification as a standard for D&D.

People seem to be conflating SoD and SoSomething. Petrification is not death if it is reasonably easy to reverse the effect with no side effects. I find spell effects that remove such conditions are much less annoying than those that remove death.

Casting an instant death spell should not be easier than dealing a lot of HP damage (3E got this so wrong...).

I agree. Death effects should alter consequences rather than completely bypass hp, thereby increasing chance of the effect doing its job. The chance of going down from a death effect and a normal damage spell of the same level should be about equal on average, but the former kills whereas the latter usually leaves you dying but alive.