SoD, how can we accommodate everyone?

[Mattachine]

In any case, BryonD, the mythical Medusa is a very sharp corner case.

Most save-or-die effects in the game are not such as you describe. Instead, they are spells and poison.

 

[keterys]

First, if you dig around you will find that on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS I have advocated that a WILL save is much more appropriate than Fort saves. The idea of a FORT save in this case is certainly the implication of the effect being encountered and overcome.

THAT SUCKS. I agree with you that *specifically* using a FORT save and then describing a character overcoming the look is every bit as wrong as any other option I've complained about. If I advocated THAT I'd be dead in the water.

Hmm, fair enough then.

Though I'd say Reflex (looking away in time) is also a good pick.

What about some of the suggestions from the other thread, though? Like doing an attack with the medusa and if the PC is hit/included, they can choose to either be blind for a round (ie, closed their eyes) or petrified? Since that does sidestep both the myth problem and the save or die aspect.

Still, it seems that the Medusa has some special place for you - particularly odd since it's an unremarkable monster in D&D. Do Banshees automatically kill anyone who hear them, to match their real world mythology? Cause it's a lot harder to avoid _hearing_.

...

Another interesting compromise position might involve Stakes - so the PC might choose to take a risk, upping the stakes (for some benefit), but doing so leaves them Vulnerable. And PCs who are Vulnerable can die on a failed save.

Or come at it from the other direction: if it's just a question of lethality, is there anything wrong with lots of attacks that can be equally lethal? Ie, if you have a 25% chance in general to die from a finger of death, why not from a greataxe hit (or crit)? Where's the line in the sand where it's cool for a poison to instantly kill someone, but an executioner's axe can't?

After all, the compromise might be to simply flip a lethality bit and suddenly _lots_ of things become more lethal. Maybe it's just 5th or higher level spells, some monster abilities... and any crit from a 9th+ level rogue/fighter/etc, to restore parity. Or maybe the non-caster classes get their selection of daily "quivering palm" examples. Rogues get assassin strike, etc.

 

[thedungeondelver]

My goodness, why all the hand-wringing? The "solution" or the "accommodation" for everyone is to put the option in the rules that DMs can have save v. death in their games, or not. If not, then do this (save v. level loss, save v. inconvenienced, whatever).

That's...really all that need be done.

 

[Raith5]

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 like this idea.

Basically I think the 4th ed was a vast improvement on previous editions of D&D in respect to grave threats. I dont want to go back to 2nd ed in games I play or DM, I just find instant death anti climatic and strategically lacking.

But the 3 saves approach in 4th ed is just way too much time. When a PC goes down when I play 4th ed there is no panic - I normally keep going with the fight and give the downed PC a chance to save again. Then I might do something...

I think this (one round) proposal should be default, if you want gritty insta death on a fail that is one option, if you want 2 or 3 rounds then that is another option.

 

[Essenti]

On a case by case basis I can be completely on board with the concept you are suggesting. But you choose a really terrible example to work with.
If you look at Medusa: You turn to stone.
It is that simple.

Your sword doesn't look at Medusa.
Eye contact with Medusa doesn't start a wave a petrification moving from your sword towards you.

To be honest, I've never used medusa in a game yet, though I have used my example of the "edge of a lava filled ravine." I only chose to use the medusa in my other example because it was mentioned further up in the thread. If I ever choose to use a medusa, I would leave a lot more clues in town and in the vacinity of her lair (ex, petrified former adversaries) so that the party was aware of how dangerous a foe they were dealing with. I definitely agree that my example was cheesy, but you still got what I was driving at.

The mythological Medusa should be a much higher level monster that isn't meant to be taken on lightly. It doesn't even make sense that there is a saving throw at all unless you have some sort of heroic magical protection to aid you or the characters know about the powers of the medusa already. Like, maybe they notice the writhing snakes in a shadow on the wall as the hood comes off and have a chance to look away, etc. At higher levels, maybe some kind of resistance save might make a little more sense.

Sadly, it actually suggests that a medusa likes to fool victims into looking at her by dropping her cloak, right in the Basic D&D description (really, was medusa even a good monster to have in a book for levels 1-3 anyway?) Oh, and her snakes dealt SoD poison too... yeah... definitely a good match for low level characters there.

 

[Gardukk]

I'd love to see something along the lines of a "difficulty slider" for certain effects like SoD or Level drain. Something that could let DMs decide how an ability works on a case by case basis. Here's a mockup, to show what I mean:

Petrifying Gaze (Su) : +16 vs. Will. Choose from below the effect that best fits with your campaign style.

• HEROIC: The target is slowed, save ends. On a failed save, the target is immobilized, save ends. On another failed save, the target is petrified, save ends.
• DIFFICULT: As above, but the target is petrified permanently.
• DEADLY: The target is immobilized, save ends. On a failed save, the target is petrified permanently.
• GRIMDARK: The target is petrified permanently.

This fits into the whole "modular" approach that Wizards keeps talking about, and it lets each individual group decide whether or not they want to stick to certain mechanics, and could even apply less "controversial" abilities as a way of adjusting the difficulty of individual monsters.

 

[GM Dave]

...

The mythological Medusa should be a much higher level monster that isn't meant to be taken on lightly. It doesn't even make sense that there is a saving throw at all unless you have some sort of heroic magical protection to aid you or the characters know about the powers of the medusa already. Like, maybe they notice the writhing snakes in a shadow on the wall as the hood comes off and have a chance to look away, etc. At higher levels, maybe some kind of resistance save might make a little more sense.

I remember the Medusa of Birthright. She was a challenge fit for that game and ruled a kingdom.

Sadly, it actually suggests that a medusa likes to fool victims into looking at her by dropping her cloak, right in the Basic D&D description (really, was medusa even a good monster to have in a book for levels 1-3 anyway?) Oh, and her snakes dealt SoD poison too... yeah... definitely a good match for low level characters there.

Medusa used to be a preferred monster like Basilisk for low level characters to fight.

Why?

Most groups carried a few monsters and wizards could learn a level 1 spell 'Gaze Reflection'.

You regularly turned these opponents 'save or die' attack back on them. It was an 'easy' kill.

They also had a great value of XP because of the SoD attack on them. Medusa also had great treasure compared to the risk.

Mirrors were like carrying kryptonite and hunting Superman in OD&D and 1e.

 

[Hussar]

My goodness, why all the hand-wringing? The "solution" or the "accommodation" for everyone is to put the option in the rules that DMs can have save v. death in their games, or not. If not, then do this (save v. level loss, save v. inconvenienced, whatever).

That's...really all that need be done.

I have to admit, the KISS approach here appeals to me.

The problem with a slider for each effect is that you wind up spending a lot of space in the Monster manual adjusting each creature. I'd rather have a single mechanical model that adjusts everything.

So, if we used the idea of four "settings":

• Heroic - SoD effects are commuted to SSSoD. Possibly even just becoming Save or Be Gibbled for a While.
• Difficult - SoD effects become SSSoD and there should be provisions for interupting the SSS besides just making a saving throw, but the effects are permanent.
• Deadly - SoD, standard, straight up.
• Grimdark - SoD effects are commuted to bonus damage equal to the PC's current HP+10. If the baddie hits you with a SoD, you die.

 

[Oni]

Such as?

The most obvious thing that comes to mind would be to give spells key words like Death/Petrification/et c., those keywords would dictate certain things like how they might interact with certain defenses or how they might be recovered from.

Next based on the style of play that you want, you can opt to go with Saving Throw Module A, in which it's one save between you and whatever ill effect you're trying to ward off. Or you can go with Saving Throw Module B, in which powers and spells that have certain keywords, such as Death/Petrification/et c. allow three saving throws, the first fail is dazed, second is stunned, third is the full effect (or some three cascading effects, they should at least be efficacious enough so that using this module wouldn't render such powers not worth using in place of other powers). You could have a suggestion for fine tuning the level of lethality by lengthening or shortening the track. Now depending on the average chance of a successful saving throw some penalty after first failed save may be necessary to keep the effect having some teeth, but that sort of thing is a bit hard to say without knowing exactly what the final saving throw mechanic and the numbers surrounding it are.

There are other ways you could further tweak something like the Saving Throw Module B that I suggested above. You could make magical effects, poison effect, et c. dispellable by an appropriate spell or power if they are used before the duration is complete (incidentally I think this is a more interesting way of using dispel than to get rid of buffs). In the case of magic you could make killing the caster before the effect takes hold dispel it as well, that would have some interesting tactical implications for combat. You could make a successful save end the effect, or three saves happen no matter what so the power is like to have some effect even if it's not ultimately lethal (i.e. you can't suffer death from it because it's not possible to fail three saves after making the first, but it is still possible to fail one or two and suffer a minor or medium consequence for a short duration), you could have successful saves move you one step up the track rather than ending the effect until they either get back to step zero or succumb.

 

[BryonD]

Hmm, fair enough then.

Though I'd say Reflex (looking away in time) is also a good pick.

What about some of the suggestions from the other thread, though? Like doing an attack with the medusa and if the PC is hit/included, they can choose to either be blind for a round (ie, closed their eyes) or petrified? Since that does sidestep both the myth problem and the save or die aspect.

Yes, something like that would be perfectly acceptable. I reacted to an example of a sword turning to stone and throwing it down before it got there.

There may be options that are not to my taste but anything that fits with if you *DID* look, you are stone solves the issue at hand.

Still, it seems that the Medusa has some special place for you - particularly odd since it's an unremarkable monster in D&D. Do Banshees automatically kill anyone who hear them, to match their real world mythology? Cause it's a lot harder to avoid _hearing_.

I do like my banshees really scary. But banshees are a bit more abstract as well. It is more a curse of imminent death rather than a drop dead on the spot.

Another interesting compromise position might involve Stakes - so the PC might choose to take a risk, upping the stakes (for some benefit), but doing so leaves them Vulnerable. And PCs who are Vulnerable can die on a failed save.

Or come at it from the other direction: if it's just a question of lethality, is there anything wrong with lots of attacks that can be equally lethal? Ie, if you have a 25% chance in general to die from a finger of death, why not from a greataxe hit (or crit)? Where's the line in the sand where it's cool for a poison to instantly kill someone, but an executioner's axe can't?

To me it comes back to modeling the stories. The classic stories* involve a lot of heroic back and forth swordplay with combatants wearing each other down. So that works.

I take a great deal of artistic license in describing weapon "hits". A crit on a target that either has or is down to low HP is typically fairly graphic. Whereas a low damage blow that happens to be the one that drops a character into negatives is usually the blow that got through to the gut, or whatever. I'm perfectly content with the great axe crit that would have taken off a commoner's head being described as some degree of serious flesh wound on the previously unwounded 12th level fighter. The fighter's skill/fate/karma/luck turned the head shot into a shoulder gash.

When you say "executioner's axe" you paint a more specific scenario. It is mathematically possible to survive a coup-de-grace in 3E, but I've yet to see it actually happen. So in that scenario the axe *IS* just as deadly (if not moreso).





* And I very readily admit this is a total hodge podge of everything from classic myth to the latest B movie.