What level is appropriate to encounter save or die effects?

[kigmatzomat]

So I see no real reason why "save or die" is such a shocking thing to 9th level characters. They've lived with "save or die" or even "die no save" from the beginning.

My problem is when a character's life hangs on a single die roll. Make it two or three and I'm fine. All of those examples you quoted above need at least two rolls to go the right way to cause a death.

If you don't want character death to hinge on a single die roll, don't use assassins attacking from ambush with save or die spells. Every other scenario I can think of involves multiple die rolls and/or player choice leading up to the save or die.

I don't see what the beef is with death caused by non-fatal injuries. Heck, a fighter can kill someone with non-fatal injuries through system shock. I see no reason magic shouldn't be a threat to even the beefiest guy.

 

[TheNovaLord]

Around 10th or so.

Basically around the same point at which the players also have a reasonable chance to cope with them, should they so choose.

Agreed. when u start to get 5th level spells and equiv CR monsters it all gets a bit save or die. This is when the game falls over for me, and most of my group, above this level we just arent interested in playing any more. As we always start at first takes a while to get to this point

JohnD

 

[VirgilCaine]

How often will a 5th level party have multipe remove disease spells available?

Scribe Scroll. Any cleric without it...

 

[Glyfair]

Scribe Scroll. Any cleric without it...

Deserves to die?

Honestly, I've only seen one cleric take it. They have so many options that it never was attractive enough a choice. Plus, clerics seem to be avoided like the plague in the games I play in.

 

[MerricB]

Save or Die effects are appropriate at level 1 if you are playing a campaign that doesn't care about the effects of character death.

Otherwise, they are only appropriate once the PCs can attain a way to reverse those effects.

Cheers!

 

[Imp]

I tend to think save or die is more appropriate at early levels, 1-3, which I like to call the Culling – then gets somewhat less appropriate at, say, levels 4-8, and then more appropriate again past that range, as they can deal more easily. I don't mind having young characters die suddenly. They're replaceable.

I am squeamish about easy raising of the dead, and like to balance this by changing many death effects to "instant -5, -9 hp" effects, so that's also a factor.

With regard to old-school hazards, I like rust monsters that can poof items, because I am anti-materialistic to a certain extent and don't like characters to identify too strongly with their loot; I also tend to think a hero isn't a proper hero unless he's been rid of everything down to the shirt on his back on at least two occasions. But old-school level drain was just a drag. I'm very glad that's weaker now. Poison is inbetween. I'm glad it's not save or die, but I think most of them are far too weak, and I hate that poison strength has been coupled with creature size. In fantasy as well as real life deadly, deadly poisons come attached to tiny creatures and I'd like the game to reflect that at least marginally.

 

[RFisher]

My view of saving throws--like Philotomy--is that they are a second chance. Your character has done something that has earned an ill effect, but he is graciously offered a chance to avoid it.

Ergo, the DM should generally make sure that the PCs have a reasonable ability to discover & avoid the danger. That doesn't mean that the danger has to be obvious; the reasonable chance of discovery can require caution. Avoiding doesn't necessarily mean that the PCs must be able to circumvent the danger & still get to what the danger guards. (Although, I happily find that players can often find a means to circumvent it without me having explicitly provided them with one.)

Therefore, save or die situations are suitable to any level of PC.

That may be at odds with the concept of saves that the designers of the current edition had, though.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Save & die effect? Man, that's harsh!

That was my thoughts exactly, upon reading the title!

 

[monboesen]

I don't use save or die effects. Maybe I would if I allowed raising the dead.

I also find it bad design that save or die effects increase in number as levels go up, IMO characters are supposed to get tougher and harder to kill with levels. In effect the situation ends up the other way around in D&D. You are more likely to die instantly at high levels than at middle levels.

Poison is inbetween. I'm glad it's not save or die, but I think most of them are far too weak, and I hate that poison strength has been coupled with creature size. In fantasy as well as real life deadly, deadly poisons come attached to tiny creatures and I'd like the game to reflect that at least marginally.

I find that poison is actually one of the areas where the game rules have progressed the most.

Poison (or rather venom as that is a more correct term for natural biological produced poisons used by creatures) is utilized by animals for two reasons. Defense or Attack.

Defense poisons are rarely lethat because they are meant to teach the attacker a lesson. "I'm bad food material, don't hunt me again and teach your offspring not to as well".

Attack posions are usually lethal for creatures that pose a natural prey to the attacker. It is true that there are snakes and spiders that have venoms that are far stronger than they technically need to be and can kill much larger animals than they can possibly feed on. But even when they are lethal they most often work slow.

A poison that kills or paralyses in a few seconds is not very "realistic"*. But a poison that slowly saps your strength/constitution or slowly does damage as your tissue dissolves in the area of the bite is very "realistic". I find that the new mechanics reflect this better.

To improve them all you have to do is keep letting characters roll saves until they pass one (or two, three or whatever you find reasonable) and let the poison do it's base damage each time they fail a save.



* but there are few mineral poisons that have that capacity in high doses.

 

[Imp]

That is true about their effects over time. The new rules reflect that much better. The point about having poisons do repeated damage, instead of just twice max, is a good one that helps adjust some of those wimpy 1d2/1d2 poisons. It's also a pretty good way of simulating dosage.

But I do not concede that poison lethality need coincide with the size of the creature. I'm thinking mainly save DC. That doesn't sit well.

Talking about average venomous creatures is one thing, but fantasy's all about the outliers. Do you plunge the hero in a nest full of cottonmouths, or mambas? Cane toads, or South American poison arrow frogs? Garden spiders or black widows? Isn't the scorpion the size of your thumb that can drop a camel a thing of perilous tales? Etc.

...edit: now that I think of it, size modifiers should apply to poison damage, especially if poison were made more lethal. It should be plain impossible to drop a Huge giant with regular ol' 1d2-causing poisons, it seems.