The save-or-die effects in the game seem like a particular issue of importance in overall design. It was obviously an item of concern for 4e, and that system takes an approach of basically eliminating these in the game. As Pathfinder RPG is aiming for backward compatibility with 3.5, I don't believe this is an option for the redesign. As such, I thought it might be a good idea to (1) get the designers' thoughts on this issue and (2) get the community focused on this particular issue, as it will filter into discussions about spells, monsters, class abilities, etc.
This topic came to mind for me in discussing my concern with archery down in the Combat and Magic forum. There, I am arguing for a Called Shot mechanic or some such that would basically allow non-caster classes to get similar save-or-effect options as casters, as I support keeping save-or-die effects in the game. I would keep these on par level-wise with the spells, likely making the effect harder to accomplish (different DC, perhaps) since it can be used at-will all day. I definitely do not support the approach of making these limited-use mechanically, as it just doesn't make any sense since they're not magical effects in any way.
To alleviate concern for the "un-fun" aspect of save-or-die, I got to thinking about how Savage Worlds addresses this situation. In that system, it is possible to perform a Called Shot to the target's head and "get the drop" on him if the target is unaware of the attack. This is almost assuredly a one-shot kill in Savage Worlds for most opponents. "Wild Cards" (what they call PCs) however have the option of using Bennies to alleviate some Wounds incurred by an attack. So a Wild Card has a shot at coming out of such an attack not-quite-dead, though still likely very hurt. I offer this up as a compromise solution for Pathfinder RPG to address concerns with save-or-die. This could be some alternate use of Action Points, perhaps. Or a Perk from some sort of Flaws/Advantages system. Both of these would be optional for use, offering those that want to minimize save-or-die effects such an opportunity while allowing those that want to leave things as-is to simply ignore the option.
I only just thought of this today, and haven't fully formed the thought, but figured I'd get it out there as a conversation starter.
Thanks!
Eric
Creative Director
|
I actually like save-or-die effects, be they something like a medusa's petrification gaze or a death spell or whatever. What I don't like is how unnecessarily punishing it is to raise a character from the dead.
In my home game, save or die effects are there, but the PCs have resources to counter them (such as hero points) or fix them (such as stone to flesh, or cure deadly wounds, or resurrection, or whatever).
Throwing creatures with save-or-die effects at a party when they don't have ways to handle the effects is cheesy though. The cockatrice, by extension, probably shouldn't have a petrification attack... or alternately, it should be quite a bit higher than CR 3.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I actually like save-or-die effects, be they something like a medusa's petrification gaze or a death spell or whatever. What I don't like is how unnecessarily punishing it is to raise a character from the dead.
In my home game, save or die effects are there, but the PCs have resources to counter them (such as hero points) or fix them (such as stone to flesh, or cure deadly wounds, or resurrection, or whatever).
Throwing creatures with save-or-die effects at a party when they don't have ways to handle the effects is cheesy though. The cockatrice, by extension, probably shouldn't have a petrification attack... or alternately, it should be quite a bit higher than CR 3.
I don't dislike save or die, but I do dislike the boredom associated with it. People build to always make saving throws, because failing against the wrong save is just too disastrous. I'd like to see most save-or-die effects reworked to the point where just failing the save has a bad effect (i.e. slowing, dazing, stunning), and failing the save by 5 or more has the full effect. Perhaps failing the same save (stoning) twice in a row creates a full stoning even if you didn't blow it by the margin.
|
I don't personally care for save-or-die effects (the actual "death" effects, that is; petrification is cool). I house rule it that death effects drop you to -1 and bleeding out. Basically I just replace "dead" with "dying." I find it leads to an increase of tension for the players rather than a sudden and final disappointment of "Oh. Well that stinks." Allies have to rush to stabilize the character, or finish off the baddie. Player decision, at least for the allies, has a hand in whether the affected character lives or dies.
This rule would still be pretty backwards-compatible; if someone wanted to go for -10 hp rather than -1 hp, no problem.
Save-or-dying (hammer him to -1, -5, -9... something not quite deadly, but knocking him out and sending him well on his way to Charon.) could work - either as standard or as a variant that is right there in the book (or maybe in the Big Bad Book of Variant Rules)
I also like the less punishing raising idea.
The death will be a big annoyance - it will result in the guy sitting on the table doing nothing for some time - without setting the guy back a level for a long time.
There could be some different side-effect to getting back. I don't know exactly what: maybe the spell has a built-in quest spell and the character needs to adher to the res'ing cleric's deity's dogma for a while.
I'll say the same as I did on your called-shots-save-or-die thread.
We need less save-or-die, not more. A certain amount of save-or-die might be unavoidable to keep backward compatability with 3.5 D&D.
But please, the game isn't in any way shape or form made more fun by _increasing_ the rate of combat encounters that basically boils down to:
Who wins init and can fire off the end-of-encounter / roll-up-new-character, save or die effects first.
There's too much of that already.
I'll say the same as I did on your called-shots-save-or-die thread.
Thanks for refocusing the conversation over here!
To broaden the discussion, is there a similar split on save-or-effect options (many of which are as good as death)?
Also, beyond my mention of Action Points and James's mention of Hero Points, I haven't seen any comment on a system that allows Heroes to get Heroic benefits (like a free pass/bonus/reduced effect on a save-or-die). Does anyone else use similar systems? Any thoughts on such? I really think this might be the best solution to the issue, as it gives both the "like" and "don't like" camps an option to work with in Pathfinder RPG that is backward compatible with little or no revision to legacy effects.
Just throwing in my two cents here . . .
I (and my gaming group, as far as I know) love SvD effects. Sometimes, there's just nothing better then the sense of suspense and dread coming from the knowledge that your characters life hangs in the balance on just this one die roll.
DnD games are not intended to be cakewalks for the characters . . . there is supposed to be some risk that they won't survive . . . there has to be a challenege presented that is actually challenging.
Am I advocating the use of only Save versus Death attacks/spells/effects? No of course not. The suspense and dread about them comes from knowing that they are few and far between, but when they do show their ugly head, boy oh boy, you'd BETTER pay attention. Any DM worth his salt know enough about the game to know when and when not to use SvD.
The removal of SvD in 4e is one of the things that struck me as odd and un-needed.
Cribbing a little from Mike Mearls's Beholder article, here's what I see as the problem save-or-die spells have. I like the idea of save-or-die, but I see some problems in their implementation.
- While they can be exciting, they're exciting for the duration of one die roll only. After that, you're either dead, which is boring, or close to nothing happened, also boring. If they had more of an effect even if you saved, or if you could do something even if you failed your save, this would be better.
- They add to the cleric reliance. Most every save-or-die type spell has a spell that you use to recover, usually cast by a cleric. Many of them also have a buff spell that makes you immune, also usually a cleric spell. So if you don't have a cleric, you're double-hosed. If you do have a cleric, then all the spells do is make you sit out a combat, and maybe you lose some resources if the spell has expensive components. That kind of takes away from the drama of save-or-die.
- Most solutions that involve the DM limiting the amount of save-or-die effects that the PCs encounter are kind of asking the DM to play the monsters dumb. If you regularly face wizards or clerics above 9th level who don't have save-or-die spells prepped, then it's clear those enemy spellcasters don't really want to win.
- Save-or-die can kill BBEGs in one shot too, which sort of anticlimactically ends the fight. Sure, it's realistic, but I play for drama at least as much as realism. So either the BBEG can die in one shot, which is anticlimactic, or he's immune (or the DM fudges the save) which is basically making the PCs waste their actions. Also a bad solution.
Really, my problem with save-or-die, is that in most circumstances nobody really wants a PC to die, DM or players. It's fun to die in the right circumstances, but mostly it just leads to quest sidetracking while the PCs try to raise their friend, or the player makes a new character and a lot of good character history is lost. Or, worst of all, IMHO, the death is trivial since the cleric just stands you right back up.
So while it's mostly not fun for PCs to actually die, neither is it fun for the PCs to be totally invincible. Most of the fun is in feeling that you're at risk, but save-or-die effects distill down that fun to one single die roll. There's just two states, okay and dead. I think a better, or at least more dramatic, solution would involve three states: okay, vulnerable, and dead. The vulnerable state is what really makes you sweat, so prolong that as much as possible.
In a way you could have that in the 3rd edition rules where an enemy can dispell a buff like death ward and then break out the slay livings, but that never seems to work well in practice.
So, if a lot of the save-or-die spells and effects in Pathfinder RPG could add some sort of "vulnerable" state, probably with penalties of its own, that would go a long way towards "fixing" it in my book.
The idea I have is to have SoD spells do a set amount of damage each round until the target is dead. For example, Slay Living would cause 3d6 damage if the save succeeds and 5/round if the save fails. This damage would continue until the target dies, or receives some sort of anti-magic spell (dispel magic, remove curse, break enchantment, etc).
This would put some of the excitement back into the situation that Mike Mearls mentions. It would also prevent 1 round victories over the BBEG.
Higher level spells would do more damage, perhaps 1pt/spell level. Also, I would suggest that the damage not stack from multiple spells.
Petrification could be handled the same way (when hp=0 you turn to stone) or ½ spell level Dexterity damage.
I actually like save-or-die effects, be they something like a medusa's petrification gaze or a death spell or whatever. What I don't like is how unnecessarily punishing it is to raise a character from the dead.
In my home game, save or die effects are there, but the PCs have resources to counter them (such as hero points) or fix them (such as stone to flesh, or cure deadly wounds, or resurrection, or whatever).
Throwing creatures with save-or-die effects at a party when they don't have ways to handle the effects is cheesy though. The cockatrice, by extension, probably shouldn't have a petrification attack... or alternately, it should be quite a bit higher than CR 3.
This is where great minds diverge. James likes SoD and dislikes the efforts to raise dead, while Monte Cook dislikes SoD and likes making it harder than normal to raise people from the dead. Go figure! ;)
I'm ambivalent about Sod mechanics. They can make encounters particularly tense and deadly (and fun for DMs and players), but at the same time can ruin a person's night because of one unfortunate dice roll.
That being said I wouldn't mind playtesting a system where SoD mechanics were replaced by ability damage and physical damage. Therefore, the gaze of a meduse would deal 2d8 points of Dexterity damage on a failed save, while something like slay living would deal 3d6 points of Con damage on a failed save.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
A couple months ago, a fellow posted a little rant about save-or-die effects on a LiveJournal board:
I wish to inform you about a class of bad mechanics existing in the core rules. They aren't unbalanced or illogical or anything; they are bad in a far more simple way.
I call these the "you can't play anymore" mechanics.
These are abilities like "panicked" and "paralyzed" that make it so that a player is unable to play the game anymore. Basically it's "oh, you failed a save? Sorry, you're not allowed to play in the game anymore. Instead you have to run away, or stand there quietly, or whatever." By using these conditions, you are are not allowing the player to have play the game.
These conditions should be used sparingly, if ever.
Yes, these fall under a broader category of "save-or-die" or "save-or-suck" effects, which in general are acknowledged to be bad design, as the fate of a character rests on a single die roll. But these are exceptionally bad to use, because the player has no way around them. It isn't that they now have to move into a flanking position to balance out that -2 from being shaken, or that they have to pull out a bow and shoot a guy because they are entangled. Using an ability that makes it so the player can't play is wrong. Period.
This message is brought to you by watching a fellow player storm away from the table after he was not allowed to participate in the only combat all session (after 8 hours of other crap which I can rant about another time) because he failed his save and became panicked and so was not allowed to play.
I answered as follows:
Hello, H ____. I don't think they're bad design at all.
Under most circumstances, I'm a fan of "save or stop" effects. I'd like to explain why.
- They emphasize the danger involved. If you want to avoid, them, fine: don't go adventuring today, or else immediately run away from every encounter. You're exploring dangerous places, fighting dangerous abominations. Perilous rolls are a way for the game system to represent the chance that bad things might happen.
- Very few of them are, in fact, "a single save or stop". They're usuallly the last roll in a string of bad luck or bad decisions. Yes, the poison needle might be a save-or-die. But there was the bad luck in the previous spot check, or disable device check, and the poor decisions that led the PC's into such dire straits.
- The game designers didn't think they were bad design. 3rd Edition added a new one, in fact: the save to avoid death from massive injury. Depending on how you count, there's also the climbing roll as your rogue is clinging to the walls of the active volcano, the save for half-damage when the dragon's breath will kill you otherwise, and the Diplomacy check after you've carelessly offended the King of Thieves.
- They offer a chance at teamwork. Yes, I suppose the player of the panicked character was "not allowed to play," but the person who prevented him from playing was not the DM. It was the person at the table who was playing a cleric, and who refused to cast Remove Fear, a simple first-level spell. Did the cleric not choose Remove Fear that day, or go to the trivial bother of having a scroll prepared? Was nobody else playing a character who could cast that spell, or a paladin? Did the party never discuss what to do when a member gets panicked? Well, that's what I mean about bad decisions.
So, when the party is going up against ghouls, and somebody is paralyzed, what's the plan? If somebody gets shot with a poisoned arrow and fails her save, what's the plan? When a vampire tries to dominate the party's dwarven fighter, what's the plan?
'Cause you've already realized that waiting until it happens and then getting mad that somebody was "not allowed to play" is neither effective nor fun.
|
I dislike save or die effects.
They go too far beyond the normal expectations of combat in D&D for me. They completely bypass the effect of wearing down a creature, and skip right to cleaning off the map and collecting the loot. While they have a drama of their own, it is different from the typical drama of a D&D fight, and I think very little would be missed by changing them.
From a game development viewpoint, I would actually question just how much save or die effects were tested. According to the game summaries from way back when, the original groups never really got much past name level. If that is the case, they never would have been able to encounter more than a very few save or die spells. Even with 3E, playtesting only went up to around 10th level, again right when save or die effects begin to appear. The only real source of information on how they feel in play comes from the mass of players who have played above those levels, and generally view them negatively. I would also note that even back in AD&D you can find more than a few published creatures with poisons that for some reason do not kill you but just weaken you in one way or other.
I am not sure how to adjust the current save or die effects, particularly those involving monsters with paralysis or petrification and the like. Persistent slowing effects does not seem the same. They can keep their special kill effects against NPC types, but PCs should not go down so completely from a save.
On the other side of that, and relating to what Russ said about builds focused on making saves, I loathe immunity abilities like evasion and mettle. No class ability or skill should grant such total immunity to magical effects. They can reduce damage by another half, but they should not negate it completely.
I dislike the concept of save or dies. They've only ever come up once in my campaign in an encounter with a Basilisk last session. The thing is that they're just too variable. You're either dead or nothing has happened. If you do die, then that's it until you can get raised. If it happens in the first round, then that's an entire encounter that you get to sit around doing nothing in. If the BBEG gets hit by a save or die effect in the beginning of the encounter that's anticlimactic. An entire encounter is averted, which is no fun. Or maybe fun for a moment. You can have danger with out save or dies. In fact I'd go so far as to call save or dies [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty]"fake danger"[/url]. The BBEG doesn't actually have to present a tactical challenge, all he needs to do is to be able to blast away a PC in one hit. You want danger? Well make an opponent that can challenge the PCs. Make them have to make the right decisions to overcome the opponent.
I'd say if save or dies are in the game they should at most knock you down to dying and/or be less effective against high level targets doing damage rather than killing outright.
|
While I like the idea of called shots, I'd like to see it implemented in an abstract way, such as a bonus to damage for either a flat penalty to hit (in melee) or possibly spending a full-round action to "size up" your shot (for ranged attacks) rather than a chart with to-hit or AC modifiers for aiming at specific body parts.
Also, in other called-shot discussions I've read through, the good point has been made that any new combat options you make available to the players also become available to creatures and NPCs to use against their characters. Tread carefully ;)
I love them, if they turn up very very rarely - there's nothing quite like seeing a player face a save or die for his beloved character.
Rich
The old giant centipede save or die was a little ott though, so poisons should stay poisons but death should certainly be in the game.
Thanks for refocusing the conversation over here!
No problem, as you said the general discussion on it probably belongs more here than in that thread.
In that spirit, I'll reply to the first part of your question from that one here. Where you asked something along the lines of should save-or-die be limited to spellcasters?
Now I might not be of the position that they should dissapear completely out of the game. But that they absolutely should be much more rare and access to them should be very limited.
So yes, they should be limited to spell casters, and even more than that. I would like to see them as something that can only be gained through wizard school necromancy, or through the cleric domain death.
Not even spells that any old wizard or cleric can learn and toss around with impunity.
Or possibly come with an XP cost unless you have chosen the school necromancy or the domain death.
I love them, if they turn up very very rarely - there's nothing quite like seeing a player face a save or die for his beloved character.
I feel the same way. I think it's incumbent upon a good DM not to throw save or die monsters and effects at the PCs too often, but their occasional use can be very fun -- sometimes especially if the beloved character does die. What happens next is often the stuff of great adventures.
I also love Save or Die (and more or less to the same degree, "Save or Suck" like fear and stun) and hate to see them go.
Our "fix" for save or die was to allow the target TWO saving throws against the effects, unless the target is at 50% hit points or below (aka bloodied).
A target below 50% hit points receives one save, as normal.
This generally keeps Save or Die from opening, and ending, a given combat.
From the DM side of the screen, certain creatures (like the cockatrice or medusa mentioned above) just play as they always have, but the PCs don't feel quite as threatened until they're whittled down a bit.
It's a quick and easy fix that is eminently backwards compatible.
Our group really likes SOD, these are a staple of DND that was one of the things that we really disliked about 4e taking away the threat of death in the games takes away alot of the thrill
I do agree if you have save or dies it should be easier to get your character back to life with out so many penelties
The one thing I would like to see is a unifying system for the save or die effects, much like hoe harm amd disintergrate deal a fix damage per caster level.
The Dex damage/petrify effect is not bad, but I would favor it being petrify or Dex damage on a save. The secondary posion effects rarely come into play (combats rarely last ome minute).
On a slightly related note, gaze attacks need to be fixed in regards to how they operate.
I also love Save or Die (and more or less to the same degree, "Save or Suck" like fear and stun) and hate to see them go.
Our "fix" for save or die was to allow the target TWO saving throws against the effects, unless the target is at 50% hit points or below (aka bloodied).
A target below 50% hit points receives one save, as normal.
This generally keeps Save or Die from opening, and ending, a given combat.
From the DM side of the screen, certain creatures (like the cockatrice or medusa mentioned above) just play as they always have, but the PCs don't feel quite as threatened until they're whittled down a bit.
It's a quick and easy fix that is eminently backwards compatible.
In all of the posts opposed to Save-or-Effect (I'm broadening beyond save-or-die, as other effects have been noted as just as disliked) it looks like the most common reason for opposition is the single point of failure. James and I suggested Action Points/Hero Points as a general option, without much elaboration (more on that below) and I've seen several folks note house rules about having two saves vs. one or break points on the save. I think these are the route to go as it gives the Pathfinder RPG an option for dealing with the issue overall without requiring rewrites throughout the SRD.
From my perspective, I like the use of Action Points as a system for allowing both PCs and important NPCs the option of avoiding this single fail point. By using X Action Point(s), the character can reroll the save or by using Y Action Points, the character can gain a bonus on the save and a reroll (using a little of their luck/fate for a second chance). By using Z Action Points, the character can declare the save an auto-success (they just used up all their karma to stay alive)
This approach, or something similar, gives those that want to avoid SoD effects an option, while allowing those that want the mechanic to remain as-is to simply ignore the option.
While I like the idea of called shots, I'd like to see it implemented in an abstract way, such as a bonus to damage for either a flat penalty to hit (in melee) or possibly spending a full-round action to "size up" your shot (for ranged attacks) rather than a chart with to-hit or AC modifiers for aiming at specific body parts.
Also, in other called-shot discussions I've read through, the good point has been made that any new combat options you make available to the players also become available to creatures and NPCs to use against their characters. Tread carefully ;)
Was this one supposed to be over in my Archery thread perhaps?
By using X Action Point(s), the character can reroll the save or by using Y Action Points, the character can gain a bonus on the save and a reroll (using a little of their luck/fate for a second chance). By using Z Action Points, the character can declare the save an auto-success (they just used up all their karma to stay alive)
What I see a lot of the posts saying is that people like save-or-die like it because it means that character can die at any moment, and they can't do a lot about it, aside from roll well on just one die.
Now, maybe I have the wrong take on this, but to me it seems like that what people like about save-or-die is that it's something not in the hands of the players. HP are something that are in the Player's hands, more or less. The player knows how many HP his character has and he has expectations or can see how much damage the monsters are doing. The player can reasonably expect that a 12th level dwarven barbarian isn't going to die in one hit from any fair monster. Save-or-die is different.
I think that if you put too much back in the player's hands, you're going to lose what a lot of people like about save-or-die effects in the first place.
I house rule it that death effects drop you to -1 and bleeding out. Basically I just replace "dead" with "dying." I find it leads to an increase of tension for the players rather than a sudden and final disappointment of "Oh. Well that stinks." Allies have to rush to stabilize the character, or finish off the baddie. Player decision, at least for the allies, has a hand in whether the affected character lives or dies.
This rule would still be pretty backwards-compatible; if someone wanted to go for -10 hp rather than -1 hp, no problem.
I also houseruled save-or-die death effects. IMC, characters don't die at -10 hp, but instead die at -Con (ie, a character with a 15 Con dies at -15 hp).
Instead of killing instantly, the character is dropped to negative hp equal to the save DC-10 (ex: a character with a 15 con who fails to save against an assassin's DC 20 death attack is dropped to -10 hp). Simultaneously, the character also suffers con damage equal to the DC-10, but does not lose any additional hp due to this loss--he just can't heal up to his full amount w/o repairing the con damage (so in the above example, the character's Con drops from 15 to 5).
|
|
I don't personally care for save-or-die effects (the actual "death" effects, that is; petrification is cool). I house rule it that death effects drop you to -1 and bleeding out. Basically I just replace "dead" with "dying."
Exactly what my group started doing. Your character is just as out of the fight, but you aren't completely and in every way dead. The only exception we made was Disintegrate, which still completely and in every way kills you when you fail.
|
I'm ok with save or die stuff as long as it's not actually death per se. Death is no fun, you just kinda..lie there. Not much to do.
Yesterday I got hit with a charm spell and the monster didn't have me do a thing besides stay out of the way (thus not giving me another save to shrug off the effect). That was kinda cool, I was out of the combat but I didn't have to eat floor or anything.
I don't mind if i'm turned into a newt. I'll get better! Eventually.
I think that if you put too much back in the player's hands, you're going to lose what a lot of people like about save-or-die effects in the first place.
Which is actually why I'd prefer any approach to save-or-die being an optional rule in Pathfinder RPG versus a core change in the system. For those groups that likely the deadliness, they can just ignore the option then without major impacts to the rest of the system.
With the system I use, Action Points are a limited resource. They can be used to minimize/eliminate bad things, but also increase good things. So the player's always have to consider whether using an Action Point for a good effect is worth the risk of needing it down the line when a bad effect comes into play. It still has a level of risk, but puts enough control back in the player's hand that he feels he's got at least some control over his fate beyond a 5% chance of randomly dying from certain effects.
|
|
To chime in on this thread I too like the concept of replacing dead with dying. It fixes the problem with the least amount of toying with existing rules and keeps instant death spells as potent effects.
As for punishing character raised from the dead I don't care for the level loss myself as it skews the party level and if you're running modules or APs that can be a real hassle.
Still ressurection, raise dead need some effect. When I ran Savage Tide instead of level loss I went with 2 points of permanent loss CON to reflect the traumatic and diminished 'life force.' The lost hp hurts but its not as harsh as level loss. What that creates though is a limited amount of times someone will want to bring their character back from the dead. Which I don't think is a bad thing. Re the notion of a built in 'quest' for raise dead I think that can definitely work in certain cases but I don't like the idea of it as the default as it creates work for the DM having to craft this sidequest out of the blue.
Save or die effects have revitalized campaigns I've been in on both sides of the screen. Every funny D&D story I have revolves around a save or die situation, and I would be sad to see it gone. I've lost characters to these effects, and while it wasn't much fun to sit around the table for a session doing nothing, it was amazing/hilarious/touching to see what the remainder of the party did in my absence.
Was this one supposed to be over in my Archery thread perhaps?Oh! Very possibly. Fingers moving faster than brain. Sorry about that, chief ;)
No problem--I figured this was the case and reposted over there to keep the discussion all together. Thanks!
Another yes for keeping save or die effects.
|
|
In most of the games I have ran at some point save or die comes into effect. However it usually has a much larger impact since I rarely allow raise dead and such. It's usually not much of a problem because even heroes die. I have read enough Medal of Honor awards to know that if the hero just popped back up afterwards it would be pointless. I want epic stories with death if it comes to that. I do allow actions and story to dictate moreso than dice however. So keep them I say.
My 2 sense.
To chime in on this thread I too like the concept of replacing dead with dying. It fixes the problem with the least amount of toying with existing rules and keeps instant death spells as potent effects.
IMO it's not a satisfactory solution because the problem with Save or Die effects encompasses more than just "death."
It doesn't work for Flesh to Stone, Baleful Polymorph, or stunning blast-- three fairly common effects that are all "as good as dead," but would really make no sense if you just applied "dying" to them.
It may be that these effects are at least "reversible" and so the impact on campaign continuity is much less than with death. If your concern is only campaign continuity, I suppose it works. But that's a DM P.O.V.
From the players' side, the problem isn't so much one of campaign continuity as it is "failing one saving throw and being left out of the fun for the evening."
You could replace death effects with dying; and then, as a second stroke at the problem, anything that could conceivably be "shaken off" should get a new save every round (a la Hold Person). As a DM and a player I can easily visualize a PC 'shaking off' the effects of even a flesh to stone and returning to heroic form.
If you read the designers' articles on WotC website a few years back, you'll see that Save or Die basically means "any time the outcome of one die roll takes the PLAYER out of the game for hours on end". So, see also: Confusion, Dominate Monster, et al.
Yes, I know, although I like the current appellation: "Save or Suck."
I, personally, hate these. These effects basically mean that the player's choice is to sit around and watch everyone else play D&D for the rest of the night or head home early.
Fear is near the top of my list to be "fixed." Because fear requires the victim to run away, it basically gets double duration: you spend X rounds running away from the fight, and X rounds running back.
My fix for Fear (and this would include Turning) is simple: You move away from the source of your fear for the first round only, and then you cower for the remaining duration.
To chime in on this thread I too like the concept of replacing dead with dying. It fixes the problem with the least amount of toying with existing rules and keeps instant death spells as potent effects.You could replace death effects with dying; and then, as a second stroke at the problem, anything that could conceivably be "shaken off" should get a new save every round (a la Hold Person). As a DM and a player I can easily visualize a PC 'shaking off' the effects of even a flesh to stone and returning to heroic form.
I do the dying replacement to death saves.
For, lets say, flesh to stone effects, replace "dying" with "transforming to stone" complete in a number of rounds equal to -10 (or whatever your deaththreshold). As for trying to shake of effects every round, I say no or pehaps depends on the spell in question. A generalization don't want dice-orgies interrupting my / or my palyers narrations... (please no "it is just one save for the player...I hear this several times and another roll and another roll is two rolls, etc.- guess you know what i mean). perhaps a save per minute is better?
A generalization don't want dice-orgies interrupting my / or my palyers narrations... (please no "it is just one save for the player...I hear this several times and another roll and another roll is two rolls, etc.- guess you know what i mean). perhaps a save per minute is better?
I suppose the last thing we want is for the player who has been hosed to remain engaged in the game, with a chance to save every time his action comes up.
Better to banish him to the couch than interrupt your game with that orgy of 1 die rolling. Who needs that kind of chaos?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm all for keeping save or suck.
|
|
I think there's a disconnect between "save and your character is dead" and "save and you stop playing D&D for the next few hours". WotC is talking about the SECOND one.
Sure...case in point, last night I had a group of Erinyes charm 2/5 of the party (the main melee and the ranged support). The battle went very bad but the party prevailed with only the cleric going negative. Two guys sat out the entire battle. Did that suck? Sort of, but I guarantee that they will be harassing the wizard to figure out how to break enchantments!
Again, players do not learn when characters have it too easy.
Petrification. I actually think this should remain the same. It is a fairly easily removable condition by the levels it starts showing up in.
3rd? (Cockatrice)
5th? (Basilisk)
7th? (Medusa)