What's the Problem with Save-or-Die?

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=81219]Fede[/MENTION]

Oh. Your issue is the instant lethality.

I don't have a problem with one turn point and kill. It just shouldn't be easy. SoD should rely on horrible match ups to succeed. Your can't fling them out and expect them to kill anyone. Death spells on the wimpy. Mental destruction on the weak willed. Petrification on the slow. Eternal glamour on the foolish. Or be very very very lucky.

 

[Incenjucar]

SoD effects manage to be stressful and boring at the same time. There's no room for build-up when everything is just a binary condition.

 

[Nagol]

SoD bypasses the basic mechanic determining character survival. This creates a situation where having access to multiple methods of incapictation becomes highly advantageous and leads to greater unpredictability in combat.

 

[triqui]

I disagree with Minigiant, and my reason is also the answer to Hassassin's question.
I don't consider Minigiant's proposal a solution to the SoD problem, because having to roll three saving throws in a row is only a way of obfuscating the probability of killing(and making it depend on more than one score, but that's orthogonal to the problem).

It's different than having saving throws that are on subsequent turns, like 4E's turn into stone medusa, because in that case you have some time to react (e.g. a cleric casting a spell to heal you, or drink a potion to save yourself, etc.) and it's not a "gotcha!" one turn kill.

I agree with you here. The 4e Flesh to Stone gaze is, imho, the way to go. 3 Die rolls (including the "to hit", if needed) in 2-3 turns is enough to give people a chance to act. The "sleep" spell in 4e is exactly what should be done.

Death effects (such as Finger of death) might simply give you the "dying" condition: you have to roll a death save every turn, if you get to 3, you die. Clerics (and other similar classes) might give you bonus to saving throws (with "guidance" spells), and normal classes might give you a +2 if they roll some ability or skill (such as heal).

That's the way to go, imho. Mearls proposed way can, also, be used with this. For example, some "death effects" might only work against bloodied characters, or characters under 100 hp, or whatever.

 

[grimslade]

Save or Die is ok for a single attack. The death auras and persistent effects that trigger SoDs are fine as an option, but wind up requiring a buff spell to ignore it or being TPK if you don't.
I like the blindfold option to offset Medusa's gaze with a big penalty to attacks. The combat is memorable and rewarding.
I like rituals to protect parties from persistent effects, but they should not completely negate the effect. Like the blindfold for medusa, they should impose a penalty to gain protection. Maybe a Life Guarding Ritual causes healing to be reduced or a penalty to damage because the ritual preserves life?
Finger of Death? Straight up attack resolution. Hit. Roll Save. Fail. Dead. Save. Pass. Neener Neener, you wasted your action.
Martial characters can trigger SoDs too. Assassin Death Attack, Fighter Decapitating Strike daily, rogue garrote attack SoD These keep the mythic and fantastical alive and eliminate the only spell caster club feeling of SoD.
You can always institute more or less deadly SoD resolution with rules options. So the more resolution mechanics the merrier.

 

[kitsune9]

I'm a fan of SoD. However, I think there should be very few mechanics to support them, be used at high levels. Only a few monsters should have "death attacks", there should be a few spells that will have SoD and those are usually at 8th or 9th level spells, a handful of inescapable traps, and maybe one or two poisons.

SoD wouldn't come into play until the characters are around 11th or higher level and likely to be 1, maybe 2 instances of SoD per module (should be used sparingly).

 

[Mattachine]

SoD wouldn't come into play until the characters are around 11th or higher level and likely to be 1, maybe 2 instances of SoD per module (should be used sparingly).

That seems very common. If adventurers have to face 1-2 SoDs per adventure, then PC death becomes quite common. Of course, the solution to this is a variety of spells and items that provide SoD immunity . . .

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

So what's the advantage of dealing 1000d6 damage instead of "you die"?

Or do you mean it should deal damage that may not be enough to kill instantly?

Speaking for myself, the latter.

The saving throw was designed to give an adventurer some chance to avoid at least the worst effects of terrible magical and mythic powers.

If these effects are removed from the game then what is there to separate the fantastic from the mundane? If myth and magic can accomplish nothing but dealing damage do we really need it at all?

If magic isn't going to have a distinctly different feel from the everyday then get rid of it.

In addition to what Bluerose said, I'd like to point out that most mundane attacks that happen in D&D are abstracted to simple damage.

In a real combat, all kinds of SoD and save-or-suck things happen; people lose limbs, they lose eyes, they take ongoing damage from open wounds...and sometimes an expert or a lucky stab ends the life of a trained and alert soldier during the first moment of a combat. And yet in D&D, all of that is abstracted to "roll a d20 and then damage" 95% of the time.

So personally I have no problem with Finger of Death simply dealing a lot of damage. In fact it's a lot easier for me to swallow than a sword attack dealing simple damage, because magic already operates under its own imaginary laws.

 

[billd91]

I think whether or not save or die effects are good/bad depends on the use they are put to in the game. Too much use or too much unpredictable use and they become problematic, particularly when alternatives are available. For example, I much prefer stat damage over save or die poisons. That gives the game a lot of different gradations of effects that can be applied via poisons rather than just death or KO/sleep. On the other hand, the power of a medusa is well known. Anybody getting close to one without using precautions deserves what they get (and I've recently presided over a medusa-caused TPK).

For some things, like charm effects, I really do like multiple saves rather than a single save, particularly for lower-level spells. They reflect the will's continuing efforts to throw off control and revert to normal function. I think that works really well. I also like the way PF has provided some variety to petrification effects with the cockatrice, basilisk, and medusa rather than have a repetitive save or die effect.

But one thing about save or sit spells and other encounter enders - their negative effect on players directly proportional to the length of combat. If a charm or hold spell takes a PC out of combat, that's not a big deal if the combat is 3-4 rounds and 20 minutes long. It's a huge deal if the combat takes an hour and a half and the charm hit in the first 10 minutes. That's a combined problem with the save or sit effect AND the length of combat encounters. Fixing one well probably means you don't have to fix the other factor as much.

One other thing about encounter ending SoDs in 3e-based games - this time targeting the NPCs. The more you have available to the PCs (and the more your players embrace the strategy), the more you tend to have laser focused optimization that may put players out of sync in play and build style. Providing more secondary effects on a successful save can help reduce the premium for super-optimization.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Putting someone to sleep with a word, a gesture, and a pinch of sand?

This is exactly the type of effect I'm talking about. Not slowing them and then perhaps later one or more targets might fall asleep.

Speaking for myself, the latter.


In addition to what Bluerose said, I'd like to point out that most mundane attacks that happen in D&D are abstracted to simple damage.

In a real combat, all kinds of SoD and save-or-suck things happen; people lose limbs, they lose eyes, they take ongoing damage from open wounds...and sometimes an expert or a lucky stab ends the life of a trained and alert soldier during the first moment of a combat. And yet in D&D, all of that is abstracted to "roll a d20 and then damage" 95% of the time.

So personally I have no problem with Finger of Death simply dealing a lot of damage. In fact it's a lot easier for me to swallow than a sword attack dealing simple damage, because magic already operates under its own imaginary laws.

I wouldn't have much problem with insta-kill effects just doing lots of damage. Its the non-lethal effects that shouldn't be reduced to mere hp loss. Paralysis, petrification, mind control, and being turned into a newt are all non-lethal.

Unless one considers temporarlily out of action to equal death? Man if thats the case there can be no mythic flavor. Everything is just put in a headlock and ground down to 0 hp.

So much for medical practice in that world......

Hey can you help this boy, he was stung by a giant bee and can't move?

Eh, just kill him. Might as well be dead.