What good are insta-kill spells and monsters ?

[Brother MacLaren]

I think TPKs are the worst I have never been in a game where it did not completely derail the campaign. I will not play with a DM who rolls in the open and believes in letting the dice fall where they may. It is no fun when the party dies because they just can't get a break on the dice rolls.

Some combat is a part of most games. When it happens, I'd rather have a DM throw an equal-CR foe at the party and let the dice fall where they may than throw a high-CR foe and fudge so we win. Once I know we're going to win every fight, I'd just as soon skip the fights altogether. There's no drama and no telling if you won on your skills and tactics or not. The key is that if the DM is going to let the dice rolls stand, he can't normally use the same "4 CRs higher" foes that a fudging DM might use. And when he does use such foes, the PCs need an opportunity to learn that they're out of their league and avoid the fight or get properly prepared.

If a non-fudge DM uses a foe with higher CR than the party level AND an insta-kill ability AND no hints for the PCs to find out about the capabilities or at least relative power level of the foe, then yes, I agree it would not be a fun game. But, normally, it should be extremely rare for any party to get TPK'd by an equal-CR opponent, unless they are rolling consistently poorly and make serious tactical blunders. Choosing not to flee is often such a blunder. That might be a hard in-character choice for the PCs to make - fleeing and leaving their fallen comrades behind - but making hard in-character choices is part of the fun of the game. How do you deal with imminent defeat, whether due to overwhelming odds, bad decisions, or bad luck? Do you fight to the death, flee, surrender, or use some sort of deception? I think that's a hugely valuable part of RPGs, because defeats and temporary setbacks are things that virtually every character from myth and fantasy fiction has dealt with at one time or another.

Of course, there are different levels of fudging, some of which I have less problem with than others. The DM can adjust die rolls or can adjust monster tactics to be slightly sub-optimal (the NPC barbarian gets over-eager and Power Attacks for his full BAB, or both the NPC fighters intercept the PC rogue to protect their wizard, thus neglecting to finish off the wounded PC cleric). The DM can change it so the PCs win every fight, or can change the situation just enough to give them a single opening to flee or parley. The DM can decrease the DC of the necromancer's saves to below what would be possible by the book, or can determine that those wight reinforcements actually won't be coming in Round 3.

In one game I was in, the PCs were in a really bad place. Two of the PCs had the ability to flee through magic. My PC told them to flee if things looked grim in order to save the mission or at least spread the alarm. I liked having the opportunity to do that, putting my PCs' priorities above my natural instinct to keep a cool character alive. Unfortunately, when things should have gone bad, the DM had the bad guys hit each other with "fumbles" and swing for subdual damage on us while we were trying to kill them (that was the most insulting part - it's like they were trying to fight us with one hand tied behind their backs). So it was all for naught. My willingness to put the mission first didn't matter, we were never in any danger, and the other PCs never had to make the choice of leaving their comrades behind. Combat and dice-rolling *do* provide opportunities for role-playing, based on how you respond to unexpected events. Merciful DMs sometimes forget that.

 

[Emerald]

Well, there's also the problem of gaming with total newbies who can't tell a stone golem from a gargoyle. Though I tend towards the anti-cinematic, death-is-always-a-possibility style of play, to run such a game with people who cannot appropriately assess the challanges they face is simply cruel. With experienced players, I can expect to take the kid gloves off (and put on the spiked gauntlets of DM bastardliness), knowing that they will back down from or run away from situations that will kill them. I can also trust them to do enough recon and research to have a reasonable idea what they're going up against ahead of time. New players don't expect this sort of DMing and will just get themselves slaughtered if I try it.

You have to DM to your audience.

 

[FireLance]

Now that is an awesome mechanic. I really really like that one. Although I'd make it 1 pt of con damage per round until gotten rid of, or the target dies, but that's just me.

In fact I like that one so much, I'd like to apply it to some other instakill abilities:

Petrification does the same, but with dex not con, and with the result of being a statue when it's all done

What else?

It would power down hold person (the 3.0 version)

Disintegrate? Doesn't really fit the idea of someone vanishing in a flash, but if they fade out...

Charm and dominate (although targeting wisdom)

Wonderful, just wonderful...

I've toyed with the idea of disintegrate doing continuous Strength damage so that the target gets weaker and weaker as more and more of his substance disappears.

Baleful Polymorph is another. Perhaps all the target's ability scores decrease or increase until they become the same as those of the final form? Adjudicating the game effects of the "in-between" stages could get complicated, though.

 

[Spatula]

I will not play with a DM who rolls in the open and believes in letting the dice fall where they may. It is no fun when the party dies because they just can't get a break on the dice rolls.

Why roll the dice at all then, if you want the DM to fudge things to go the players way? Just describe what your character is doing and let the DM decide what happens. I'm being serious, here - if you don't like randomness, remove it from the game.

 

[reiella]

I believe the existance of surprises, even as dramatic as an instant-shot, are good to most any campaign.

I had a nice fun surprise (for both myself and the party) last session when I made an interesting discovery about the 3.0 Pit Fiend... Meteor Swarm 1/day makes for one hurt person.

I'll admit quite readily that I like to 'tell a story', and the party can typically recover from anything sans a TPK (which problem lessens the value of an instant-kill). Didn't even get a frustrated gripe out of one of the more fun encounters I ran recently that involved a dragon whose breath weapon as a Disjunction effect. But honestly, if the story has little chance of failure, it wouldn't be too exciting for me to run . All the players in my campaign have died at least twice so far.

Really, at some point in your adventuring career, you're going to have to accept the reality that you're going to be facing Magic/Effects that can SPLAT you almost instantly, and prepare accordingly. If not, it's going to appear even more capricous when it first starts to occur.

[ Add / Edit ]
One of my player deathes was ironically in a very similar situation. They encountered a Runic Guardian who had Power Word, Kill set as their runic tatoo.

 

[takyris]

Heh.

Well, not this time... I'm bringing a triptastic spiked chain munchkin out to play.

Fun and efficiency don't have to be mutually exclusive.

-Hyp.

I should note that my spiked-armor-wearing grapple-tastic fighter took those two levels in cleric pretty much solely in order to get War Domain (Free WF:Warhammer) and the ability to use a Wand of Silence. 'Cause really, the only thing better than grappling spellcasters is having a field of Silence radiating from you while you do it.

Why, golly, I somehow suspect that few of the spellcasters in the module have still spell. Huh. Bummer for them.

 

[Campbell]

I'll preface this post with the following, I don't like save or die effects as a DM and I don't like save or die effects as a player. I believe that fear in the face of mortal danger is an important element in any roleplaying situation where risking life and limb is literally what the characters get paid to do. However save or die situations have never seemed to contribute to any sort of trepidation in any game I've ever run, and as a player using save or die spells ruins any sense of triumph I might get from taking the lives of my enemies.

It might just be my emotions getting in the way here, but I like a certain sense of dread to accompany the death of any player character. Death by saving throw is just too quick for my tastes. Besides if you really want PCs to fear death, there are means other than body counts to invoke that fear. It actually scares me more as a player, and delights me more as a DM, to have a number of close calls. With the right amount of description, knocking at death's door and slowly slipping into the reaper's embrace can make death into a disturbing experience. With save or dies I'm dead and that's it. There's no going down, gritting your teeth the whole way. It's just death.

I'm sorry if the post was convoluted, and I hope I was able to present more centrist viewpoints in the I Don't Like Save or Die Effects Camp. As always YMMV. Good Gaming to everyone here.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

If a non-fudge DM uses a foe with higher CR than the party level AND an insta-kill ability AND no hints for the PCs to find out about the capabilities or at least relative power level of the foe, then yes, I agree it would not be a fun game.

That's when I really dislike insta-kill stuff. I think it has it's place in the game...

I do agree with what a lot of people have said - GM fudging the dice rolls to completely remove the risk of dying... it's not fun - I've had an 'immortal PC' before and wasn't happy about it. Ever since then I've gone for a dice on the table policy.


However, I do go with cutting my PCs a break - what fun is a TPK - surely it's far better if the last survivor or 2 get offered the chance to surrender/flee? They're going to have some interesting adventures... and it keeps the game on track.

If you can come up with ways to kill/TPK and still carry on the game then that's also great. Animated as oddball undead. Playing on as ghosts for a session or two. Bit of time in the afterlife. etc. Makes for something a bit more interesting than a standard 'raise dead', 'roll a new character' or worse yet 'start a new campaign'.

Obviously it can't be used in every situation, but now and again this sort of stuff really does it for me... IMO, it adds to the story side of the game and it's interesting? I don't really consider it fudging... it's just a little plot alteration.


The above ideas were inspiration from a particularly good GM... was worth the price of my tickets to gencon by itself!

Another one he had is possibly best shared with an example:

A party is fighting a necromancer - he casts a spell. Green Ray shoots out and hits a PC. Ask PC to make a fort save.

Passes it - that was the dreaded Finger 'o Death you just avoided: Have some damage. PC 'gets the fear' but survives. They've just seen that their opponent can throw death magic around. They're going to want to alter their tactics right about now.
Fails it - that was a maximised vile Ray of Enfeeblement - really unfriendly, the player won't be dancing around the room, but isn't dead. Someone who can throw magic like that around probably has access to death magic. They're going to want to alter their tactics right about now.

Obviously it comes apart if spellcraft checks are made but, imc, that's only likely to happen either a)someone readied a counterspell. (and they're going to counter this!). b)after the spell is cast, to work out what it just did.

These sort of things go in my game. I think they add to it. As long as they're not overused.... In any case, I never tell the players about them!

If they deserve it then they get whatever the dice dish out for them. These things just get used if someone deserves a break.

They generally get used if I think the PCs need to be cut a break.

 

[Rashak Mani]

What many DMs forget is that fudging can be done in many ways not only holding back punches... the above post is a good example of sending "weaker" spells whenever Fort Saves fail.

- You can do bad combat decisions for stupid monsters
- You can give a vital clue to players during combat about a weakness through a Know. History or Know. Planes.
- Monsters can fail "morale saves" too if the group is slaughtering some of them
- Reduce HPs too..

The problem is making an encounter so dangerous that no fudging will help them... balance balance balance... with humanoids especially I send in equal CR and if they are having it to easy I send in "reinforcements".

 

[Afrodyte]

As a player who prefers story*, I too loathe instant death effects, except in the case of an obviously overwhelming opponent (like a great wyrm red dragon for 3rd-level characters) or flagrant stupidity on the part of the characters (charging an army of goblins).

And, to put it bluntly, using capricious death as a threat all the time get boring after a while. It's one thing in a game for a character to owe a mob boss money and having him threaten to kill him if said funds are not delivered by a certain time. It's quite another to just happen to be in an office building when a disgruntled former employee decides to blow it up.

There are other threats besides death that characters should be looking out for. That is, if they have things they care about besides their own skins. Loved ones can be put in danger. Prized possessions can be stolen, destroyed, or taken away. Losing one's freedom is not a nice thing either. Aside from the elves and dwarves, being thrown in prison for 50 years is not most people's idea of a great vacation. If characters have goals, having something that make that goal completely unattainable is a great threat too. Even if you stick to the bodily harm example, how would getting a limb hacked off (for being thieves or associated with thieves), eye gouged out (for "seeing too much"), or tongue sliced off (for insolent speech) sit with most player characters? What about magical VD for tavern-hopping with comely wenches or succubi? If you think of all the ways you can make characters' lives harder, or even just completely miserable, death seems kind of wussy by comparison. So many ways to inflict suffering onto characters (especially if they richly deserve it), why settle for death? And imagine if all these things are a result of the characters' own carelessness, arrogance, and/or stupidity. Far more effective than a random encounter.

*By story, I do not mean a series of events predetermined by the GM that take all the decision-making from the players' hands. That is railroading, and I hate it. However, I do mean story in the sense of things like character, plot, theme, and conflict (not necessarily combat) coming together in a cohesive narrative.