SoD, how can we accommodate everyone?
- Thread starter Oni
- Start date
G
Guest 85555
Guest
I think fundamentally there is no one single answer. Where it adds to game game and where it detracts will vary from group to group. This, I think, is one of the lessons of the last ten years. People have different tastes and this why some people cringe at 3e, some cringe at 4e and others cringe at old school stuff (and why some people love these things).
Take the old school modules in your example,not everyone dislikes their lethality (even if it seems random to people accustomed to less lethal games). For many, making it through such modules and living to tell the tale is a great badge of honor. For others the whole getting killed part ruins the experience. Personally I think the designers of 5e would be wise to realize there is no one true way on alot these things. An improvement for one person is a step back for another
avin
First Post
And medusa.
All in all, I'm always open to save or go find a (insert good roleplaying plot here) solution.
In fact, I used to do this... I'm not a big fan of ressurrection on my homebrews...
Save or Die should exist for lava, Medusa and other classic situations... but used everyday by clerics and wizards is something I'm also not a big fan...
Meh.
Sorry, I play D&D to have fun. Not to create PCs. Some people like creating PCs and like trying out new ones a lot. I don't.
I want my PC to go from zero to hero over the course of years. I have no problem with lethal encounters as long as it's not a single die roll and your PC is dead (I even once had a DM say "Oh, you're outnumbered, your PC is dead" with no opportunity at all to play it out and see if my PC survived). I can handle lethal encounters as long as the PCs can react to situations (encounters where the NPCs stun the PCs left and right are the equivalent of save or die, so those are worthless as well). I prepare my PCs, I craft or purchase "go to the well" items and push comes to shove, my PC is going to survive, or it's going to be a TPK. Some players hang on to their PC's gold. I use my PC's gold to help out my PC (and indirectly, the party).
Save or die throws all of that player and months of in game preparation out the window. One might as well just be telling stories in a room with no character sheets and someone flips a coin and says "Sorry, your story is ended. The volcano exploded and that group died. Next story."
D&D is a game, not a luck roll competition. I play games to enjoy them, not to NOT enjoy them.
Some players can change PCs like they are changing their clothes. Others like to play the story for their PC out over years. Save or die is a worthless game mechanic for the latter sort of player and shouldn't be part of core.
If the DM wants a lethal game with save or die type mechanics, I'll just pass on that game.
G
Guest 85555
Guest
I agree for your style and tastes save or die isn't a good mechanic. But for my style it is a perfect fit. That is the great thing about this hobby, there are a wide variety of playstyles out there.
Consonant Dude
First Post
I think the primary reason a lot of DnD players have such a hard time with Save or Die is because it is almost the antithesis of hit points.
Hit points are very much canonical to DnD. You have this gauge. As long as your gauge doesn't reach X (0, or -10, or whatever) you are still in the game.
So here's the thing. Since very few people start threads titled "Dying by loss of hit points sucks or is unfair or blah blah blah" we must look at what happens there. Why is dying by HP loss OK?
To lose hit points, a series of pulse-pounding steps must happen. They usually include determining init-surprise, then exchanging blows. The more HPs you get, the more flexibility you have when it comes to pacing yourself in a combat encounter. As the combat is prolonged, there is excitement as you see it unfold and the probabilities (plus the DM's description of the situation) become a way for the player to see how the combat is going and "gamble" with his life or strategically retreat. Every time you are hit, you see that little HP gauge change.
By contrast, many save-or-die situations are sudden. A ceiling suddenly falling or that tasty stew being poisoned are things your PC probably never saw coming. Then, mechanically it gets worse because instead of a series of steps, you have one roll determining the character's fate.
I don't think there's much that can be done about situations. Certainly, I think there is room for sudden happenings such as a cavern ceiling coming down or tasty poisoned stew. But mechanically, there may be ways to change the single step (roll once. If you fail you die) into several steps. At least in certain situations.
Maybe in certain instances, save-or-die could be changed to some kind of consecutive saves VS HP loss, for example.
Hit points are very much canonical to DnD. You have this gauge. As long as your gauge doesn't reach X (0, or -10, or whatever) you are still in the game.
So here's the thing. Since very few people start threads titled "Dying by loss of hit points sucks or is unfair or blah blah blah" we must look at what happens there. Why is dying by HP loss OK?
To lose hit points, a series of pulse-pounding steps must happen. They usually include determining init-surprise, then exchanging blows. The more HPs you get, the more flexibility you have when it comes to pacing yourself in a combat encounter. As the combat is prolonged, there is excitement as you see it unfold and the probabilities (plus the DM's description of the situation) become a way for the player to see how the combat is going and "gamble" with his life or strategically retreat. Every time you are hit, you see that little HP gauge change.
By contrast, many save-or-die situations are sudden. A ceiling suddenly falling or that tasty stew being poisoned are things your PC probably never saw coming. Then, mechanically it gets worse because instead of a series of steps, you have one roll determining the character's fate.
I don't think there's much that can be done about situations. Certainly, I think there is room for sudden happenings such as a cavern ceiling coming down or tasty poisoned stew. But mechanically, there may be ways to change the single step (roll once. If you fail you die) into several steps. At least in certain situations.
Maybe in certain instances, save-or-die could be changed to some kind of consecutive saves VS HP loss, for example.
keterys
First Post
In editions before 3e, failed saves were pretty uncommon. Certainly by the time I remember death effects being thrown about willy nilly, I might only fail a save on a 1 or 2 much of the time.
So, what about a compromise like this:
Finger of Death
Deals a bunch of Necrotic Damage. If that reduces the target to 0 hp, target dies.
Successful Save: Half damage and being reduced to 0 doesn't autokill
Failed Save on a 1: Dead
So, what about a compromise like this:
Finger of Death
Deals a bunch of Necrotic Damage. If that reduces the target to 0 hp, target dies.
Successful Save: Half damage and being reduced to 0 doesn't autokill
Failed Save on a 1: Dead
Consonant Dude
First Post
You've said that a few times and that still has nothing to do with why save-or-die cause such concern as opposed to death by HP loss. Campaign lethality is also a very interesting topic but it has very little to do with this topic.
We must look deeper as to why this particular mechanic causes concern for many.
No we don't. You've already pointed it out earlier.
Save or die sucks because it is sudden and the player cannot have the PC react to it in character. With hit point loss, there typically is the option for either the PC or his/her allies to intervene.
Save or die = end of story. The story ends for that PC (shy of raise dead) and hence, it ends somewhat for the player. Hit point loss, even in a tough encounter, usually is not = end of story. It's one thing to have the player try one's best to prevent PC death. It's another to not allow the player to make any decisions at all to try to prevent that PC death.
Even if that player brings in a new PC in the same campaign, the story is drastically changed and not really the same story. For that player.
Loss of hit points allows the player to act to attempt to prevent the death. Save or die doesn't. It's no deeper than that. That's why Stun effects should be used sparingly and not via all of the monsters in an encounter. It's slow death where the PCs and hence the players, cannot react.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Lethality is still an issue. A single roll determining whether a character lives or dies is very different from a series of attack and damage rolls over a period of rounds. A battered character can seek retreat or healing or otherwise try to turn the tide before he dies. A character facing SoDs is either fine or dead, no sense of when his 'luck is starting to run out.'
But, another issue is that save-or-dies were very unevenly distributed. In classic D&D, saving throws became very easy to make by the time casters got a lot of SoDs and poison wasn't much of an option for PCs, so SoDs were mainly the province of monsters, traps and cursed items (heck, cursed items often didn't even grant a save). In 3.5, PC casters got extremely effective SoDs, but non-casters got none at all, wich added to the already extreme imbalances between the two.
