What good are insta-kill spells and monsters ?

[diaglo]

Believable? I thought we were discussing D&D.

It is far more important that D&D be a good game than it conform to some person's view of what is believable. As a game we want interesting decisions that have interesting consequences. Death coming down from a clear blue sky is surely one of the more boring options available. Think of the possibilities: Teleport to a random location, drain 2d10 Wis, Planeshift to the Plane of Lava, trap the victim's soul in the amulet, victim becomes insane, Confusion on everyone in a 60' radius, etc. Suddenly slumping over is just deadly dull.

read again what i consider my game. i play my character. i become my character.

i believe from my character's point of view.

my goal is to survive a world full of monsters, magic, and possibly gain fame, fortune, and godly notice.

 

[MarauderX]

MarauderX - I just sent you an email

[super-secret conversation across threads]
Thanks SilentSpace. I got it and responded - I would be happy to help out whenever you need.

~MX
[/super-secret conversation across threads]

 

[Kestrel]

The issue is randomness: to what degree should the outcome of an encounter be dictated by a single die roll? This goes both ways. Is it interesting to have a climactic encounter be short-circuited, because the wizard gets lucky with a hold person? And yes, there are ways to minimise your vulnerability to such things, eg by boosting your saves. The problem still exists, and if you play for long enough, the situation will still arise.

Its funny, but you'll find that a lot of players are fine with the BBEG being dropped by a spell and unlucky save in the first round of a combat. But, if the situation is reversed, they will complain that its not fun for thier characters to be in the same situation. I'm not saying that this is the case with everyone, but I've noticed it with some players over the years.

I roll all dice in front of my players and they are warned that I let the dice fall where they may. Its makes the game more fun if you can die in any combat at anytime. It adds a much needed edge of danger that I particularly enjoy as both a player and a gm. If you don't like this, then you should be playing in someone else's game. I've still got a full table everytime I run a game, so I must be doing something right.

Now Im running AU and I like the hero points in that system, although its not unique to AU. Hero points are a great way to save the player's bacon from these random acts of death, which can happen in any battle. Unfortunately for my players, they haven't acted heroically in quite a while, so they have no points to fall back on.

 

[Darklone]

hong, I agree.

I don't want to pull punches, but I think insta kill effects or similar stuff is detrimental to the game enjoyment. Paralysis btw as well, I would have prefered temporary Dex damage instead.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Believable? I thought we were discussing D&D.

It is far more important that D&D be a good game than it conform to some person's view of what is believable...

Yes, but what if you don't think it's a good game if you don't find it to be reasonably believable? How can you role-play a character if you're incapable of putting yourself in their shoes because their situation doesn't make any sort of logical sense?

Note that I'm talking about believability here, not "realism." We all know D&D doesn't define anything like a real world. I do expect the world to be consistant within its own framework, though.

 

[Pyske]

Out of curiosity, have any of the supplements come out with rules to "tweak" save or die spells to be less lethal? Or is it just a common type of house rule?

I haven't yet seen much use of spell effects that ramp up to save or die, or degrade to being unaffected, or give repeated chances to break free, etc. The "hero struggles for several rounds against death / paralysis / enchantment" seems to be a staple of fiction, but doesn't seem to be used much in the D20 system.

. . . . . . . -- Eric

 

[Rashak Mani]

Original Poster Back...

We are a more or less 12th lvl group if that matters to the discussion.

Also we were fighting some pretty tough undead for 2 rounds when the Golem showed up. So just the Undead was a medium or a bit more difficulty encounter. There was no way I would have thought he had insta-kill spells ! That would have made the encounter pretty pretty dangerous I thought.

Also I'm not advocating pulling punches and making sissy campaigns. I agree that without the prospect of death the game does lose a certain edge... even Raise Dead at least brings a XP and GP penalty that make players reluctant to play Kamikaze. PC death can happen from spell combos or damage... taking insta-kills a bit down doesn't necessarily make campaigns less deadly.

I just hate out of the blue insta-kill effects. Sorcerors/Wizards casting such a spell DON'T actually bother me since its understood that they have possibly such spells. When arcane spellcasters show up everyone is aware of the danger... and my group and most groups know that quickly taking down Arcanes is essential... plus you can still at least try to interrupt his spell casting.

The DM can restrict what spells he makes available to PCs too... so if its a issue of balance to make insta-kills harder or rarer the DM can take 'em from PCs too.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Dude, you'd hate my game. It's full of enemies with deadly and unknown abilities.

Do you really believe you should know the capabilities of your adversaries in advance? Would you be disgruntled if you went to fight a sorceress and she turned out to be a medusa sorcereress and you got petrified? I'm not trying to sound snarky- I'm just puzzled by why this bothered you. Maybe I should read the rest of the thread here.

Yeah, because I'm sure that the fact that she routinely turns people to stone (or that she has lots of statues around, or whatever) would be far, far less important than the fact that she can sling around a couple of low level spells.

And wow, am I sick of the "you turn around the hooded individual and... save vs petrification!" schtick. It's old, it's tired, it's lame, it's no fun. Put it down like it deserves.

Its funny, but you'll find that a lot of players are fine with the BBEG being dropped by a spell and unlucky save in the first round of a combat. But, if the situation is reversed, they will complain that its not fun for thier characters to be in the same situation. I'm not saying that this is the case with everyone, but I've noticed it with some players over the years.

And you'll notice that the DM's, those guys with a large amount of control over the balance of power, are routinely involved in searches for ways to NOT have their BBEG's terminated by SOD spells.

I daresay those same DM's are the ones who think that the medusa trick is a good laugh that will engage the players in their adventure.

Finally, my words on the subject

Quiddich would be a really crap sport in real life. Why?

Because you can automatically win the game through attaining a single goal. Furthermore that goal can only be attained by a single player. Everyone elses abilities are basically totally negated, because the seeker can just grab the snitch, and that's it, the game is won.

Talk about effing boring.

And that's what an instakill monster is. No matter what other precautions you've taken, no matter what the rest of your abilities are like, if you blow that one save, game over for you.

If you had a chance to prepare, and didn't, or if you had a chance to study your opponent, and didn't, fair enough - your failure is actually something that can be attributed to you.

But if it's something like a bodak that just waltzes out and slaughters half the party without warning... what's the point? Why did I bother playing? Nothing I did could have made a difference to the result. I'm just along for the ride.

Fundamentally it's not FUN.

 

[Geoff Watson]

Original Poster Back...

We are a more or less 12th lvl group if that matters to the discussion.

Also we were fighting some pretty tough undead for 2 rounds when the Golem showed up. So just the Undead was a medium or a bit more difficulty encounter. There was no way I would have thought he had insta-kill spells ! That would have made the encounter pretty pretty dangerous I thought.

Why not?
Some Golems have had insta-kill effects since they first appeared (Iron Golem has poison breath).

Geoff.

 

[med stud]

This is so individualistic that there is no answer but your own to whatever it's good or not. But since you didnt ask for a true answer I will give my opinion instead

When DMing I dont pull punches. I will try to maneuver the PCs into situations they can handle but with some effort. In this example I would have clued the PCs that there was some bad ass golems or just some "horror that kills without touching you" in the dungeon.

But this also depends on how you got into the fight with the undead; if you just charged into the room with the undead without scouting/trying to draw them out etc and the golem was within perceptionall range (I dont know what senses golems use ) I would have brought the golem on. The most important thing for me when GMing (except for fun etc) is consistensy, even if some PCs will bite the dust for it. By the same reasons no golem would just appear in a combat so that the screwing goes in both direction in that sense ^^

So for an unexpected instant kill situation: if the PCs had some conceivable means of avoiding the situation but didnt, bad for them. If there would be no possibility for the PCs to know, I wouldnt do it.

On generally hard encounters: The PCs will always have an option of not taking a very hard battle. If the players dont use their brains as they were meant to in that situation, too bad for the PCs.