Warbringer
Explorer
If you think save or die sucks, try losing a character to failed system shock roll 
The ethics of ... death
- Thread starter Greenfield
- Start date
Been there, done that.
Mishihari Lord
First Post
That would be me. Hit points are a terrible health mechanic and I avoid them whenever possible. But they're such a fundamental part of D&D that I can't really do without them and have a D&D experience. Since I feel that hit points are more fundamental than save-or-die, and the two are in conflict, I'd like to see some changes to save-or-die.
Balesir
Adventurer
Interesting thread topic.
In D&D, I generally dislike SoD. The reason that may seem odd is that my long-time favourite RPG is HârnMaster, where practically every wound is, in a sense, "save(s) or die" because shock, infection and such are always dangerous. My problem with it in D&D, I think, is that it doesn't fit - it's inconsistent.
What I mean by that is this: consider a tough character being hit by a giant's axe. A direct hit by that axe ought, by any sane measure, to be fatal. But the "damage" it does to hit points will never, if the character's hit points exceed the giant's maximum damage, kill the character. The only reasonable way to interpret this is that the giant's blow actually missed - just. It was close enough to ruffle hair, force a desperate dodge and/or rip clothing/armour - but it didn't actually hit.
So, why doesn't this happen with the "death ray"? It's really no more likely (or unlikely) to kill on a direct hit - but we were never assuming "hit" = "direct hit" in any case. So it's a mechanical difference with no really good reason to be handled differently. It's purely arbitrary. And the "follow-up" issue there is that this arbitrary (but often very powerful) feature is far more frequently applied to spells than to (say) really big axes.
So, in summary, I have no real issues with "save(s) or die" in a game per se, but I much prefer not to have them in games that run primarily on "hit points" or equivalent mechanics (like "health levels") for the simple reason that they introduce an inconsistency. And that inconsistency - like several others - is often used to cloak or simply confuse systemic biases, imbalances or other issues with the game as a whole. Ergo, for D&D, I would rather not have them, in general, whereas for games that use non-hp injury/dying rules they're fine.
In D&D, I generally dislike SoD. The reason that may seem odd is that my long-time favourite RPG is HârnMaster, where practically every wound is, in a sense, "save(s) or die" because shock, infection and such are always dangerous. My problem with it in D&D, I think, is that it doesn't fit - it's inconsistent.
What I mean by that is this: consider a tough character being hit by a giant's axe. A direct hit by that axe ought, by any sane measure, to be fatal. But the "damage" it does to hit points will never, if the character's hit points exceed the giant's maximum damage, kill the character. The only reasonable way to interpret this is that the giant's blow actually missed - just. It was close enough to ruffle hair, force a desperate dodge and/or rip clothing/armour - but it didn't actually hit.
So, why doesn't this happen with the "death ray"? It's really no more likely (or unlikely) to kill on a direct hit - but we were never assuming "hit" = "direct hit" in any case. So it's a mechanical difference with no really good reason to be handled differently. It's purely arbitrary. And the "follow-up" issue there is that this arbitrary (but often very powerful) feature is far more frequently applied to spells than to (say) really big axes.
So, in summary, I have no real issues with "save(s) or die" in a game per se, but I much prefer not to have them in games that run primarily on "hit points" or equivalent mechanics (like "health levels") for the simple reason that they introduce an inconsistency. And that inconsistency - like several others - is often used to cloak or simply confuse systemic biases, imbalances or other issues with the game as a whole. Ergo, for D&D, I would rather not have them, in general, whereas for games that use non-hp injury/dying rules they're fine.
Imaro
Legend
The problem is that "good game design" isn't a thing unless you define what you want out of the game. If it's "fun", then mechanics that are fun = "good game design". If it's encounter balance, then games that lack that = not "good game design".
But until you define what it is you want out of the game, you can't judge whether or not it's got good design in that area. If the goal is "I want at least one person to die from this effect" (be it falling distance, bodaks, or whatever), then the game giving you one or more deaths (on average) = "good game design". If you don't want that, then it's not "good game design".
It sounds like they're serving what you want them to, which, as far as I can tell, makes them a well designed mechanic.
How do we judge it? We set up a way to judge it, just like we would for any other product. Sometimes people judge things on purity, sometimes people judge things on function, etc. We need to come up with what the mechanic should be doing, and seeing how closely it matches what we want it to. And, the sticky part here is that "what we want" is just personal taste. As always, play what you like
Wish I could give you some XP, but yeah you basically summed up my thoughts as to the questions posed by Hussar.
Imaro
Legend
I'm not sure which edition(s) of D&D you are speaking to in the above post, but 3.5 has massive damage threshold rules (as well as a few variant options) that can be found in the SRD... so I don't really see an inconsistency in 3.5 as you present it in the example above. There is the 50 hp threshold, the Con threshold, HD threshold and the size based threshold... depending on the feel and playstyle one wants. There are also save failure variants in the SRD as well so that a DM can further customize how deadly he wants these to be...
Correct me if I am wrong, Danny, but most of those seem to be multi-step slides into death. The guy was first paralyzed, and *then* got snatched. When you see the guy with the two-handed sword, there's a pretty good signal that he can deal out lots and lots of damage. One difference, then, is warning the player. Having the guy with the two handed sword walk towards you across the battle field, and you *choose* to engage, rather than have someone you didn't know about pop around the corner and cast Power Word, Death. Do you have a chance to take reasonable actions to mitigate circumstances?
Ahnehnois
First Post
It seems to me that various combinations of stealth and invisibility can not infrequently allow martial characters to achieve one-hit kills on surprised opponents.
Yes, but think about the number of steps required to achieve that:
1) Antagonist detects party, but is not detected themselves
2) Antagonist activates invisibility (activates ring, has buddy cast spell, or what have you)
3) Antagonist uses stealth to get in melee range
4) Antagonist rolls a hit
5) Antagonist rolls sufficient damage to bring PC to -10 in one shot.
There are several points of failure - the PCs can find the antagonist before they start to stealth. The PCs can detect the stealth. The antagonist can miss. The antagonist can fail to do sufficient damage. In context, this is generally not a one-roll, "Bang, you are dead!" scenario.
If the GM has engineered an antagonist such that the party *couldn't* detect it, and failing to hit or do enough damage really isn't going to happen, then, yes, this becomes very close to a death spell, and for purposes of these discussions, maybe the GM would want to tone it down a bit.
