The ethics of ... death

[Ahnehnois]

That being said, it can be difficult, at times, to make spells a limited resource. The best way I can think of to do this is to make time the main resource that PCs have, but I don't think D&D generally does a good job about enforcing this. I think time, and how to use it, deserves its own major chapter in the DMG, listing different ways of using time as a resource for different styles of campaigns.

That's not a bad point.

However, I don't think limiting spell use on a daily basis was ever a particularly good idea to begin with. With monster abilities you often see better means of balancing. For example some of them (not the SoD's, usually), when you save against them, you're immune for a day. Deal with it, then move on, no spamming. I've tried to adopt this to some PC abilities. And even at-will is better; it's powerful but at least it's clear what the implications are.

 

[Tuft]

Again, if it's serving its intended function (which could be "be more lethal than HP normally allows things to be"), then it's not broken.

To me, SoD monsters give meaning to all the activities you do to *avoid* said effect, especially for non-combat roles. Simply, making preparedness pay off.

For example:
A) The group's social character does Gather Information in the villages on the road to the dungeon. Gets tips that there is a medusa around.
B) Said social character looks up a peddler who can sell mirrors to them.
C) The group's sneaky character scouts ahead to spot the medusa before it spots them.
D) Once spotted, the group's damage dealer(s) use the mirror to safely defeat the medusa.

Loads of activities where the non-damage-dealer characters could strut their stuff, so that the SoD can be happily avoided.

Compare this to simply teleporting to the dungeon, kicking in the door, and be completely unprepared for whatever awaits inside...

Of course, if you do se D&D as just a series of chess-game set-up fights, with not much gathering of information, collecting defensive counter-measure resources, etc, well... Then I can see how SoD is a bane.

In our 4E trial campaign, as a "leader" I hated to not have any contingency powers - not being able to *save* anyone from bad conditions, just because there were no really bad conditions to be had. Nothing to prepare for, just top up people's hitpoints as soon as they got quarter-damaged...

 

[Guest 85555]

Does the word broken mean anything to you? An effect which completely bypasses the survival mechanics is broken. End of story. It's too powerful, in any hands, whether DM or player.

When is the goal of monster design EVER to kill at least one PC?

A medusa will not kill at least one pc in every encounter, but they have the potential to kill one or more pcs. They and their SOD power are designed to make encounters terrifying. For me they succeed. The moment you realize all those statues in the courtyard came from a medusa, you get a feeling if dread in your belly. If the medusa couldnt turn you to stone so easily and on a single roll, I would not get this feeling. And moments like this are exactly why I game. So i think this is a perfectly acceptible design goal for a monster. What needs to be acknowledged is it doesn't work for everyone or for every playstyle.

It's not a personal preference because it's pretty easy to prove that it's broken. What's the level adjustment on a medusa? Oh, that's right. Doesn't have one because it's not allowed (by the rules anyway) to be a PC. Why not? Because a medusa's gaze attack is way too powerful for any PC to have.

Really this says more about LA than the medusa or SOD. It doesn't mean save or die is broken. Some monsters are too powerrful to be player characters and that is fine. I really think all the things you have listed so far amount to preference. They are perfectly valid preferences to have, but they are still preferences and not everyone shares them.

After all, it's just a monstrous humanoid. Virtually every other Monstrous Humanoid has a Level Adjustment, allowing it to be a PC race. Why are Medusa special?

I see nothing wrong with a powerful monstrous humanoid too powerrful to be a PC race. Medusa are supposed to be scary because they turn you to stone. They are one of the most dangerous creatures taken from mythology. Having their gaze as a SOD effect, is a great way to emphasize that.

Removing SOD does not mean anything about the lethality of a given campaign. It just removes the blindingly arbitrary and pointless death that it causes.

But this is ultimately an issue of lethality. You appear to dislike that sod makes pc death posible on a single die roll. People have been raising these criticisms of SoD or a long time. It is a somewhat divisive mechanic. The problem is some peope really like it, and some really hate it. And that has everything to do with preference. Instead of denying the people who like it the mechanic on the grounds that it is "bad design" I think a much better solution is for WOTC to acknowledge ths division, state it is simply a matter of preference and offer up some mechanism to scale SOD to the desired level of lethality (perhaps even giving the option to simpy replace it with a flat damage roll).

 

[Tuft]

I don't think save-or-die reduces possible choices into noise. It seems to me that save-or-die works on a strategic level. They create a cost (facing a save-or-die situation) to going into a tactical situation unprepared. Thus you will want to gather information as to how to prepare for those upcoming tactical situations.

Exactly. I would not say that i was the original purpose, but the presence of SoD monsters is a good tool to make awareness and preparedness *matter*.

As for NPC casters, as opposed to monsters - well, if they are notable, I imagine you could be able to research their favourite spells in advance...

 

[Umbran]

Thus you will want to gather information as to how to prepare for those upcoming tactical situations.

Gathering as much intelligence on each tactical situation in the real world is an important thing. And, while it can be cool to put a lot of resources to it occasionally in game, encouraging the PCs to always go through the exercise, just in case there's a creature with a SoD effect, will not have a salutary effect on game play. And, in fact, it is apt to be difficult to do. If SoD is rare, they will generally not go through the exercise, be caught unaware, and die when the SoD does come up. If SoD is common, the players become paranoid, and won't go *anywhere* until they've done their checks. And this is D&D not, "cast lots of divinations to see what'll kill us today if we don't have the right buffs handy".

Quite frankly, I expect most won't find a regular exercise interesting, as it answers only one simple question - do we have protection from today's Save or Die effect? If yes, then we pretty much ignore the SoD. If no, then we avoid the encounter. What it fails to do is otherwise change the *action* of the encounter. It doesn't change the round-by-round decisions made, which are the meat-and-potatoes of the encounter.

Which, come to think of it, makes it look like preparations for SoD may be more strategic than tactical.

 

[Doug McCrae]

gathering of information, collecting defensive counter-measure resources

I'd like that part of D&D more if it didn't favour the Vancian casters so strongly. D&D has many specific defensive spells such as protection from evil, remove curse, remove disease, protection from energy, dispel magic, death ward, neutralize poison, freedom of movement, restoration, and stone to flesh.

 

[Alzrius]

I'd like that part of D&D more if it didn't favour the Vancian casters so strongly.

I don't think it does; rather, I think that people just think that it does, since changing what spells you prepare is obvious.

Non-casters should ask themselves "WWBD" - What Would Batman Do?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Non-casters should ask themselves "WWBD" - What Would Batman Do?

Batman's a wizard.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Batman's a wizard.

Superman's a wizard. Batman's a rogue.

 

[Hussar]

Ever since the game was largely focused on combat and had rules for how characters die, I imagine.

Really?

If an 8th level party squares off with a hill giant (any edition, it doesn't really matter), it's a pretty foregone conclusion that the party is going to win this fight without any deaths. Now, there are outliers here. I realize that. The dice gods can decree that the giant hits every attack and the PC's miss all the time. Fair enough. But, for the most part, that giant is going to die without killing a PC.

It's predictable. Why? Because the giant uses the HP mechanics. It has an attack value and will do roughly X amount of damage per round. This is calculable and we can make all sorts of assumptions. For example, the hill giant is worth more XP than an orc. Why? Because the giant is harder to kill and is more dangerous. Arguments about "pacing" don't enter into it. The giant is worth more XP because it's a bigger monster.

Now, same 8th level party faces a medusa. There is a pretty good chance that a PC will fail a saving throw and die. Much greater chance of death than facing that giant. So, shouldn't the medusa be worth a lot more xp? That's how xp values are calculated.

Monsters are never designed on the idea that "This monster should kill at least one PC in every encounter it's used". That's just very poor game design. Any monster based on this would automatically be rejected.