The ethics of ... death

[Hussar]

Going back to the math thing for a second.

If the goal here is to make certain encounters more lethal, why bother with SoD? Why not simply increase the monster damage? A dangerous snake does XdY damage (poison if we want to type it out) and is higher than normal for a creature of that level. That way it becomes easy to scale - if you want a more or less dangerous snake, simply adjust it's damage output - and we get combats that are more random. Again, this achieves the stated goals.

SoD doesn't do this. HP's have no memory. If I'm hit for HP damage, and then healed, my chances of dying from the next hit are completely unaffected by the previous damage. The chances of a PC death is all contained within that encounter (or possibly carrying on until healed later). But SoD doesn't work like that. SoD isn't time dependent.

Say your character makes a SoD save at 2nd, 6th and 9th level. Now, since monsters generally scale and save DC's scale as well, you chances are somewhere in the 50:50 range. Might be better, could be worse. We'll use 50:50 because it makes the math easy. The odds that you will not die to any one of these attacks is 1 in 8. 7 in 8 times you die. Even if we reduce the saves to 25% fail, you still die about 60% of the time.

Now, it might be the first one. It might be the third. Doesn't matter. Odds say that you will die on one of these attacks.

Which is why I keep saying that these mechanics are broken. HP ablation doesn't work like that. Nothing else in the game works like that. It actually means the the more times you are successful, the less chance there is that your next attempt will be successful.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If the goal here is to make certain encounters more lethal, why bother with SoD? Why not simply increase the monster damage?

Because you don't want them to wear down HP, obviously. But, some monsters do lots of HP damage, where Fighters might live and Wizards are almost guaranteed to die. The design goal of a SOD monster and the "brute" monster is often different.

A dangerous snake does XdY damage (poison if we want to type it out) and is higher than normal for a creature of that level. That way it becomes easy to scale - if you want a more or less dangerous snake, simply adjust it's damage output - and we get combats that are more random. Again, this achieves the stated goals.

If your goal is to interact with HP (and thus leave a lasting effect for later monsters that also interact with HP), then this is good design.

SoD doesn't do this.

That's pretty much the point.

Say your character makes a SoD save at 2nd, 6th and 9th level. Now, since monsters generally scale and save DC's scale as well, you chances are somewhere in the 50:50 range. Might be better, could be worse. We'll use 50:50 because it makes the math easy. The odds that you will not die to any one of these attacks is 1 in 8. 7 in 8 times you die. Even if we reduce the saves to 25% fail, you still die about 60% of the time.

Let's use your math, because it's easy. Sounds good so far.

Now, it might be the first one. It might be the third. Doesn't matter. Odds say that you will die on one of these attacks.

Correct.

Which is why I keep saying that these mechanics are broken.

Well, unless you're going for low odds of survival with the design, of course. Then they're functioning as intended, which is objectively good design.

HP ablation doesn't work like that.

Exactly.

Nothing else in the game works like that.

Not exactly like it, no.

It actually means the the more times you are successful, the less chance there is that your next attempt will be successful.

Well, no, it doesn't. But, regardless, you're still arguing preference (you want high survival chances). How is this anything other than your preference? As always, play what you like

 

[Ahnehnois]

Which is why I keep saying that these mechanics are broken. HP ablation doesn't work like that. Nothing else in the game works like that.

Actually, everything that allows a save pretty much works like that. Enemy uses special ability. You roll save. If you beat DC (or pre-3e equivalent), you're usually fine. If you fail, you suffer an effect. You might be nauseated. You might be dominated. You might be dead. Your hp are equally irrelevant regardless of what the save is against.

Except in some of theses 5e playtests where they have made hp relevant for these things, which I am vehemently against.

It actually means the the more times you are successful, the less chance there is that your next attempt will be successful.

It does not mean that. Each roll is independent. Successes do not increase the DC or pull down the die roll of future attempts.

 

[Imaro]

It actually means the the more times you are successful, the less chance there is that your next attempt will be successful.

Huh? That's some real fuzzy probability going on there...

 

[Hussar]

Well, unless you're going for low odds of survival with the design, of course. Then they're functioning as intended, which is objectively good design.

Well, since we're talking about D&D, low odds of survival is not a design goal. After all, D&D is about heroic fantasy. Everything else lines up with that. It's been quite a few editions since we had disposable characters for the first three levels.

And about the fuzzy math. Kinda sorta. If you flip a coin twice and both times it comes up heads, it is no longer 50:50 that the next flip is heads. Or am I getting my math all screwed up here? It's been a really long time since I did stats.

 

[billd91]

Nothing else in the game works like that.

If you're specifically talking poisons, that's not true. There are lots of save or X effects in the game that impose an absolute condition of some sort (being held, charmed, paralyzed, dead, etc) so poison is not alone. If you mean save or x in general, the fact that there are lots of effects in the game that have that very mechanic makes the initial statement fairly silly. They may not be as common as effects that cause hit point damage, but they're not exactly rare.

It actually means the the more times you are successful, the less chance there is that your next attempt will be successful.

No it doesn't. The success of any number of previous attempts has absolutely no effect on the next single attempt. I'll be charitable and assume what you're trying to say is that the chances of rolling a set of x consecutive successful saves is lower the higher the x.

 

[jasper]

In all of those movies, how many of the peasants say "Hey, we should go hire some adventurers like we did last Spring when that other monster showed up"? Those same movies tend not to portray monsters as a common threat.... but you stating Nraac Monster are so common the peasants can give you the latin name and its ecology. And since monsters are so common the rules are broken because the peasant can't survive.
Ok everyone no can have pcs as the monsters ate your grand father.
And to be extra silly, going with RAW my grand kids would have a hard time surviving the Christmas Holidays especially when their old mad uncle with is ratty red and gold scarf plays a game of pull my finger (lightning bolt!)
The RAW are written with PC and adventure in mind; not as one on one realistic world where Brave heart can shoot fireballs out his bum.

 

[Guest 85555]

Going back to the math thing for a second.

If the goal here is to make certain encounters more lethal, why bother with SoD? Why not simply increase the monster damage? A dangerous snake does XdY damage (poison if we want to type it out) and is higher than normal for a creature of that level. That way it becomes easy to scale - if you want a more or less dangerous snake, simply adjust it's damage output - and we get combats that are more random. Again, this achieves the stated goals.

.

Because the whole point is to get around the funkiness of HP, where no matter how tough you are, the effect is similarly deadly across the board. using XdY basically just makes it a normal type of damage, but these are not normal thpes of damage. These are things that attack your organs, or turn you dust or stone. With saves you have have any number of effects keyed to failure, to help emulate unqiue types of harm (such as petrification or deadly poison). I also really elevates the stakes. Unless I tack on a huge modifier to the damage roll, there is too much of a range if its XdY damage (even 20d10 could do anything from 20 to 200 points). The whole purpose of these sorts of things is to do something outside the whittling away of hitpoints, to have a less predictable and potentially more dangerous option. Now, you might not like it. Too many people might dislike it for it to have a place in 5E. But that is still an issue of preference, not bad design. Doing something different than the core damage mechanic doesn't make it bad design (especially since it brings a host of other things to the table). Being too deadly isn't bad design, there are plenty of valid reasons for designers to make a game more deadly (not the least of which is a good chunk of the player base likes deadlier action). I am totally with you that it isnt for everyone, and I suspect it may have to be nerfed a bit or set to a dial to fit inot the new edition (and I am totally fine with that). I just have to reject that it is somehow objectively bad design.

 

[Guest 85555]

In all of those movies, how many of the peasants say "Hey, we should go hire some adventurers like we did last Spring when that other monster showed up"? Those same movies tend not to portray monsters as a common threat.... but you stating Nraac Monster are so common the peasants can give you the latin name and its ecology. And since monsters are so common the rules are broken because the peasant can't survive.
Ok everyone no can have pcs as the monsters ate your grand father.
And to be extra silly, going with RAW my grand kids would have a hard time surviving the Christmas Holidays especially when their old mad uncle with is ratty red and gold scarf plays a game of pull my finger (lightning bolt!)
The RAW are written with PC and adventure in mind; not as one on one realistic world where Brave heart can shoot fireballs out his bum.

I dont find it implausible that peasants would know about monsters and have stories about how to harm them. When you think of things like vampire stories the hunters often are getting their best information from peasants in Eastern Europe. If the monsters are in the area that doesnt mean they are attacking all the time but folks may encounter them and live to tell the tale, or witness their special attacks.

 

[Guest 85555]

And about the fuzzy math. Kinda sorta. If you flip a coin twice and both times it comes up heads, it is no longer 50:50 that the next flip is heads. Or am I getting my math all screwed up here? It's been a really long time since I did stats.

It is still 50-50 that the next flip comes up heads. Even if you had a string of ten heads results, the next flip is 50-50 heads or tails. It does not change the probability of the following die roll.