SoD, how can we accommodate everyone?

[Mattachine]

In D&D, the remedy for removing petrification is similar to the remedy for raising someone from the dead, except with a lesser penalty. Typically, it requires a spell effect of level 5 or 6.

There are other conditions that are SoSomething (like paralysis), but petrification is the equivalent of death in-game, except that there is a different remedy.


I think the new edition, from the get-go, should offer versions of monsters with different strengths of SoD or SoSomething effects, as mentioned above.

For spells, I think making SoD spells even higher level, and making them tougher to cast (unavoidable penalty to caster, long casting time, etc.) would both help.

The highest level SoD spells should be done away with, or available to only epic casters.

 

[Hassassin]

In D&D, the remedy for removing petrification is similar to the remedy for raising someone from the dead, except with a lesser penalty. Typically, it requires a spell effect of level 5 or 6.

Also, no time limit, no cost to cast, no chance the target's soul is unwilling or unable to return.

It can be different in 5e.

There are other conditions that are SoSomething (like paralysis), but petrification is the equivalent of death in-game, except that there is a different remedy.

Mechanically, they are pretty close. Thematically there are important differences, and I can imagine campaigns and settings where reversing petrification is ok but raising the dead not. Of course, that's not the D&D default.

 

[TwinBahamut]

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.

I'm a bit confused by your response here, since what you quoted pretty much is my response about how you accommodate both. You accommodate both by holding both to the same standard. If you are using 4E's three death saves mechanic, then all instant death attacks (including things like being pitched off a mile-high cliff) should require the player to fail three saves for successful instant death. I didn't say anything about removing instant death...

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.

I was just commenting on how, in the original greek myth, Medusa's petrification was immediate death with no hope of anything like a will save or fortitude save. There were no stone to flesh spells in ancient Greece, and the existence of such spells is contrary to the Medusa legend. That's part of why I don't think it is good to blindly follow the myth to the letter.

 

[Hussar]

No

Thank you your honor, no more questions. Mechanics trump myth since the myth says that the characters MUST die, and you do not enforce that myth, thus, a double standard. In the Medusa case, you enforce the myth that seeing the medusa MUST turn you to stone. In the Banshee case, you do not enforce the myth.

Explain to me again how this is not a double standard BryonD. It's pretty cut and dried. Either you enforce the myth or you do not. You have clearly stated that you do not in this case, but do in other cases.

Trying to turn this into a pissing contest as usual with big bad Hussar twisting your words yet again, doesn't change the fact that you are using a double standard.

Thus, no retraction is needed.

 

[Aramax]

Im not sure any of this needs to be a core rule,you could easily publish a few monsters(cockatrice,basalisk,medusa and catablebus)that feature a SoD and then it would be up to the DM to use them.Leave them out of published moduals and make them rare,they should be in any case.

 

[Oni]

I'm a bit confused by your response here, since what you quoted pretty much is my response about how you accommodate both. You accommodate both by holding both to the same standard. If you are using 4E's three death saves mechanic, then all instant death attacks (including things like being pitched off a mile-high cliff) should require the player to fail three saves for successful instant death. I didn't say anything about removing instant death...

I'm not sure that holding both to the exact same standard is really accommodating both playstyles. It's saying everyone should do it one way and ignoring one the primary selling features of the next edition, its modularity.

 

[Hussar]

What if we traded SoD for damage attacks? Effectively, it works the same way. If you die from the special attack, add a rider effect - turn to stone, burst into flames, whatever.

And, to emulate different SoD approaches, you simply dial up or down the damage dealt. You want a SoD medusa? Ok, it does your HP+10 on a hit. Blind characters are immune. Poison? Whacking great damage bonus depending on the lethality of the poison and perhaps ongoing damage, again varying by how lethal you want the game to be.

The odds become pretty similar to SoD when you simply turn it into an attack power and make it active for the monster, rather than a passive effect. Varying the damage could easily accomodate various interests.

 

[Oni]

What if we traded SoD for damage attacks? Effectively, it works the same way. If you die from the special attack, add a rider effect - turn to stone, burst into flames, whatever.

And, to emulate different SoD approaches, you simply dial up or down the damage dealt. You want a SoD medusa? Ok, it does your HP+10 on a hit. Blind characters are immune. Poison? Whacking great damage bonus depending on the lethality of the poison and perhaps ongoing damage, again varying by how lethal you want the game to be.

The odds become pretty similar to SoD when you simply turn it into an attack power and make it active for the monster, rather than a passive effect. Varying the damage could easily accomodate various interests.

It's certainly a workable model, it's been done to varying degrees in other games. It would sort of take things in the direction of Fate, wherein most versions if you deplete someones stress (HP) you essentially can do what you want to them as long as it makes sense regarding how you attacked them. Now obviously it's a little more open in that kind of system, the essence is there, you deplete someones HP with a Death attack they die, you deplete someone's HP with a Petrification attack they are petrified, you deplete someone's HP with a Sleep spell, they're asleep. The question in D&D is where do you draw the line, there are things that are obviously not lethal but can be, depending on the circumstances, SoD in all but name. Sleep and various Paralyzation powers come to mind.

 

[BryonD]

Thank you your honor, no more questions. Mechanics trump myth since the myth says that the characters MUST die, and you do not enforce that myth, thus, a double standard. In the Medusa case, you enforce the myth that seeing the medusa MUST turn you to stone. In the Banshee case, you do not enforce the myth.

Explain to me again how this is not a double standard BryonD. It's pretty cut and dried. Either you enforce the myth or you do not. You have clearly stated that you do not in this case, but do in other cases.

Actually I've already addressed that in detail.

I never stated that I don't and I, in fact, clearly stated that I do.

Perhaps you simply don't grasp the point that was made.

Trying to turn this into a pissing contest as usual with big bad Hussar twisting your words yet again, doesn't change the fact that you are using a double standard.

He says as he takes a single word from my post out of context and tries to spin that as a valid reply.

I mean seriously, does saying "No" to the specific question, asked BY YOU whether I just "declare them dead" and based on specifically answering that question with an explanation you turn that into me saying that the fact that they must die isn't held up? Seriously?

This very post of yours was flat out dishonest.

Thus, no retraction is needed.

Myth trumps mechanics.
100%
Whether or not you figure out to actually offer a correction of your claim is simply a reflection on you. Me and my game will persist either way.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'm not sure that holding both to the exact same standard is really accommodating both playstyles. It's saying everyone should do it one way and ignoring one the primary selling features of the next edition, its modularity.

I'm sorry, but you're still confusing me...

What do you mean by "accommodating both playstyles" here? I'm not trying to reconcile different playstyles. I'm trying to create a system where there is between instant death and non-instant death, regardless of the game's desired lethality (which I think is one of the core playstyle difference being discussed, myth loyalty aside). If you have balance between instant death and other forms of lethality, then many of the complaints about instant death go away, which lets it come back to the game (fixing a major complaint by its detractors).

Besides, there is still plenty of room for modularity... The death mechanic that unifies everything is itself a prime candidate for being modular.