The major fun issue is not 'oh noes, my PCs are dying', its 'aw crap, the melee classes didn't get to do anything because the wizard SoDed it in one'. SoDs make the game less fun for the players because they rate so well performance-wise for spellcasters, and trivialize encounters.
If they're only trivializing encounters on occasion, that's a good thing. It's fun for the party to occasionally hit the jackpot on a lucky die roll, just like it's fun to run the risk of instant death. These are not problems that need to be solved; these are things that keep the game from just being amateur theatricals scripted and directed by the DM.
(Well, there is the problem of leaving a player with nothing to do. Historically, this was solved by characters of sufficient level to face death effects having henchmen the player could take over and run. To this end, the design flaw is the Leadership feat and other mechanics that cut down on "cohorts".)
If they're trivializing encounters regularly enough to be a problem, the problem is the incompetence of the DM. I mean, there's only the barriers of spell resistance, a saving throw rolled behind a DM's screen, death ward (and magic items thereof), monsters that are inherently immune to death effects . . .
Now, overpowered relative to the non-spellcasting classes? Fine, there's a balance issue. Add balancing factors. Make the spells expensive, high level, dangerous to the caster . . . make the martial characters more badass. Whatever.
I'm torn on this one. Personally, I like the grittier games than all the namby-pamby "gotta make sure the players are having fun" games. So for that reason I would like to keep the SOD spells. Of course I realize that a lot of players wouldn't consider it "fun" to play in a game where everyone has to take a flaw (like in Unearthed Arcana) but doesn't get a benefit from it (which I think would be a blast).
I would be willing to compromise with a system that allows two saves, though I am not sure about spreading them out over multiple saves. The idea is to use a spell that would target the weakness of your opponent. This is like saying that since wizards and sorcerers are "squishy", all attacks should first have to get past AC and then the character gets a Will save to shrug off the damage.
Of course, I've always thought there should be more SOD spells spread across the other saves. For example, I can't think of a single SOD spell that has a Reflex save??
+1 to the above poster... that is so right.
I'll throw my opinion in here, as well. I agree with Pathfinder's treatment of SoD, and I feel that it doesn't go far enough.
I hate SoD effects. I'm not just talking about spells. Bane weapons, Power Word Kill, Massive Damage, Blasphemy, etc. I hate them all.
D&D is a game where Hit Points are used to track damage as an abstract system. A "25 HP wound" is not a specific amount of damage - it varies by the target, based on their condition.
I favor (and will use in my home game) a rule in which all "kill" effects are resolved with damage. Any effect which says it kills a character will deal HP damage instead - quite a lot, usually. I put this on a scale based on caster level and effect level, as per the normal limitations on spellcasting. Generally, I consider 10d6, 20d6, or 10/level a good ballpark figure. This works to cover all effects, even those from alternate sourcebooks.
I don't like to see anyone or anything killed by massive damage. I use the Stunned condidion, instead, and I make the save tougher. Being stunned for one round is not as bad as dying, but it still has a major impact on combat, and it serves my sense of what should happen when massive damage occurs.
Save or Die favors spellcasters and bad guys too much, IMO. DAMAGE is the only way that a character should ever really die (whether HP or Ability).
-Scott
So, I have a simple question to those who are in favor of the old "Save or Die" spell mechanics.
Do you honestly believe a 13th lvl wizard (Finger of Death) or a 9th lvl cleric (Slay Living) should have the power, albiet a 5% chance, of outright slaying a CR 30 opponent? Especially, when there are no classes (short of a 15th lvl druid) can make that very same claim?
SoD's are only fun for the caster and not anyone on the receiving end. I approve of adding saves to old instant kills like Blasphemy. In my campaign I removed the "Killed" entry of those spells and replaced it with "Harmed", as per the spell Harm.
I'll probably still do it that way. Blasphemy was always a great way to get rid of lower-level nuisances like cohorts, summoned monsters, and NPC allies.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Of course, I've always thought there should be more SOD spells spread across the other saves. For example, I can't think of a single SOD spell that has a Reflex save??Maximized Shivering Touch.
Oh wait, that's just a 'die' spell. Targets weak dexterity though. Instant dragon killer ftw.
Curse you for bringing that abomination up. My battle sorcerer traded it away because it was making encoutners unfun.
I 100% agree with Robert's suggestion. This is a terrific mechanic for SoD.
well thank you. I'm beginning to see a trend on our collective thought processes.
You don't happe to live anywhere near the bay area of California, do you?
Robert
Almost due east over the Sierras actually. I have friends in the Bay Area who I still DM for online and whenever we get a chance to visit each other.
Really, what do fighters get to do that isn't in combat?For starters, they get to swing their swords all day long. Wizards only have so many spells. And a big whopping power attack crit is a hell of a lot more memorable than a wizard's lightning bolt or even disintegrate.
That really doesn't really answer the question.
And speaking of Disintegrate, as a spell requiring an attack roll, it also qualifies for critical hits. Doubling up that 2d6/level can add up to some insane damage. Especially if Empowered, or, god forbid Maximised by a 20th lvl wizard (40[d6]x6x2) for a WHOPPING 480 hit points of damage.
And concidering the "weaponization" of spells, I think allowing crits being allowed with attack based spells was a large mistake, increasing the power gap between martial and casting classes. As such, that pesky little rule should go the way of the do-do bird.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
And speaking of Disintegrate, as a spell requiring an attack roll, it also qualifies for critical hits. Doubling up that 2d6/level can add up to some insane damage. Especially if Empowered, or, god forbid Maximised by a 20th lvl wizard (40[d6]x6x2) for a WHOPPING 480 hit points of damage.
And concidering the "weaponization" of spells, I think allowing crits being allowed with attack based spells was a large mistake, increasing the power gap between martial and casting classes. As such, that pesky little rule should go the way of the do-do bird.
See, I personally don't mind the 'crittable' nature of ray/orb/touch spells. Pure casters have sucky BAB, and the Eldrich Knight* loses at least two caster levels, so confirming the crit is a perk of the class. While not as rare as a tripple 20 = instakill. it was always a high five at the table. My Battle Sorcerer inflicting 70+ damage with an orb of force brought cheers and laughs, especially since it was readied to couterspell "Um, that's a DC 80 concentration check."
Now I'll admit, the Cleric/Druid/Battle Scorcerer triad break this, with their average BAB. Battle Sorcerer I don't mind. Cleric and Druids, that's an inherent problem in the class.
As to the Disentigrate issue. If you want to take an 8th (empower) or 9th (maxamize) level spell, use it for a 6th level spell's save, roll a 20 to hit, (or a 19 for improved critical) confirm a crit then have the bad guy fail his save and SR, then I'd say the wizard deserves his 480 points of damage.
*Yes I know, there are a ton of classes/prestige classes that blow this all to snot, Abjurant Cheesewhore, pretty much any prestige class from Scarred Lands, duskblade, etc. I try to keep my balance issues limited to d20srd.org. Any game can be broken with enough splats
Pure casters have sucky BAB, and the Eldrich Knight* loses at least two caster levels, so confirming the crit is a perk of the class.
Keep in mind too, that even if the wizard hits that 5% "sweet spot" for a possible crit, confirming a ranged touch attack really is not all that difficult. Especially when comparing it to a melee classes need to hit a "hard" AC.
Elminating save or die also eliminates action points (an optional fix to the rule that in many cases can add a lot to the fun outside of that specific case). Many groups don't use action points, so it's no loss for them. But groups that do, pretty much can't use them anymore if "save or die" effects are gone, because then everything is a cake walk. I can only speak for my table, obviously, but groups that use action points and really like them probably want to keep them.
Elminating save or die also eliminates action points (an optional fix to the rule that in many cases can add a lot to the fun outside of that specific case). Many groups don't use action points, so it's no loss for them. But groups that do, pretty much can't use them anymore if "save or die" effects are gone, because then everything is a cake walk. I can only speak for my table, obviously, but groups that use action points and really like them probably want to keep them.
And a action point cannot be used to re-roll a save against an attack that lands 120+ points of damage in favor of the reduced ammount for making the save? Keep in mind, that kind of damage also forces a Fort save against massive damage or die.
And a action point cannot be used to re-roll a save against an attack that lands 120+ points of damage in favor of the reduced ammount for making the save? Keep in mind, that kind of damage also forces a Fort save against massive damage or die.
It can, but you would need it a whole lot less. Still, your suggestion could work if the number of action points was sharply reduced.
And, for the record, the Fort save for massive damage is and always has been a total joke -- it's next to impossible to fail (a flat 5%, in practice).
Here's a question...how does this effect supernatural abilities of monsters that have save or die abilities, like the Bodak?
10 hp per hit dice if the PC fails?
Not all save-or-die effects are gone (at least not yet). Destruction (for instance) hasn't been rewritten, nor have Cloudkill, Power Word: Kill or Symbol of Death (although those three have built-in limits already). Nor have save-or-mostly-die spells like Flesh to Stone or Imprisonment.
Not all save-or-die effects are gone (at least not yet). Destruction (for instance) hasn't been rewritten, nor have Cloudkill, Power Word: Kill or Symbol of Death (although those three have built-in limits already). Nor have save-or-mostly-die spells like Flesh to Stone or Imprisonment.
Actually, Destruction has been rewritten with the 10 hp/level rule...
This spell instantly delivers 10 points of damage per caster level. If the spell slays the target, it consumes the remains utterly in holy (or unholy) fire (but not its equipment or possessions). If the target’s Fortitude saving throw succeeds, it instead takes 10d6 points of damage. The only way to restore life to a character who has failed to save against this spell (and was slain) is to use true resurrection, a carefully worded wish spell followed by resurrection, or miracle.
the spells that have not been re-written are those that have a maximum number of HD affected. Which provides them with a built in regulator.
Spells like Finger of Death, Destruction, or Slay Living, do not have such a limit. And, as such, have been addressed/re-written.
I am also torn on this change...one of the first that gets to me a bit.
I don't typically use massive damage too much except in the case of traps. I guess I would institute it specifically for this spell so the flavor doesn't change too much.
Actually, Destruction has been rewritten with the 10 hp/level rule...
Whoops -- I stand corrected.
|
See, I personally don't mind the 'crittable' nature of ray/orb/touch spells. Pure casters have sucky BAB,
I know I'll just be confusing the debate with facts, but sucky BAB is almost irrelevant against most targets when using a "touch" attack - especially ranged touch - since most arcane casters have a positive dex mod.
In my game on Saturday, the party was fighting an adult Large Black Dragon who was kicking the partys butt. It had a 36 AC and most of the party have having a hard time hitting it! The wizard got a wave of fatigue spell on the dragon - which left the dragon "fatigued" just before the dragon returned fire with his breath knocking the wizard into unconsciousness.
Two rounds later someone was able to revive the wizard - he stood coughing and wheezing (seeing he and the cleric were the only two left still standing there) from all the acid burns and managed to fire off disintigrate spell. Natural 20! Now roll to confirm. A 2!!! Everyone groaned. I said - dont groan yet - his touch AC is only a 10! I said - to add it up. BAB 4. Thats a 6. What about DEX Mod +3 thats a 9; everone groaned. I said - well thanks to your Waves of Fatigue - his DEX is lowered by 2 - thus his touch AC is now only a 9! Much rejoicing. I said - make a spell resistance; he has an 18 - you need a 7. Rolled a 9. Much rejoicing. I said the dragon gets a Fort Save - thats his good one. DC is 21 - he has +15 - needs a 6. Rolled....a 4! The table cheered and gave the wizard a high-five as he did 180 points of damage! killing the dragon of course.
So my point is - a 2 on the D20 was enough to successfuly 'hit' (confirm a critical in this case) a BBEG. BAB is mostly irrelevant when it comes to ranged touch attacks. Not to mention simple party buffs like Bless, Haste, and Bard-song will all make that even MORE likely to hit.
Robert
|
Here's a question...how does this effect supernatural abilities of monsters that have save or die abilities, like the Bodak?
10 hp per hit dice if the PC fails?
Most creatures with spell-like abilities will have an effective caster level stated, which is equivalent to their Hit Dice, so if it isn't specifically stated, that would be a good assumption to make.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Robert,
So he rolled a nat 20, confirmed the crit (admittedly easy against that target. in 3.0 psionics we called dragons 'deep impact chowder') breached the spell resistance and it failed the save. So you're saying that after 4 rolls 3 of which were against the odds the dragon went fwoom. if I'm doing my math right (stats were never my strong point) that was a .356% chance of coming together. With the alternative being a TPK.
That's not a flaw in my arguement, that's exoneration. It's also a story that will be told around the table for a long time.
|
|
Robert,
That's not a flaw in my arguement, that's exoneration. It's also a story that will be told around the table for a long time.
I think it was fine!
I was neither exonerating, or arguing your comments as a whole. I was merely adding a fact to your comments that seemed to indicate from your perspective that crappy BAB means 'to hit spells' aren't effective. I added the seemingly overlooked fact that the BAB is irrelevant with ranged touch - and is not the problem or barrier in most cases. Therefore using the BAB as basis for arguing that spells aren't powerful is not a valid point.
Robert
Just to add my own two bits here...
Having been on the receiving side of a save or die... my first thought was wow, that's lame. My second thought was what's on t.v.
I've seen other players get hit with save or suck or save or die effects and go off to play video games for the rest of the gaming session.
At that point, you're not having fun playing the game, because you're not playing the game.
As a player, sure it's fun to prepare spells that can really make an encounter much easier... but I can't forget a game we played where it was a 1 night deal to go after a Gargantuan Black Dragon... and my wizard on his Phantasmal mount flew up to the Dragon (having the "hide from dragon" spell active) and cast Irresistable dance... and the GM looked at me and begged me not to do it, since I would pretty much ruin the entire night's game session with 1 spell (how much of a challenge is it killing a dancing dragon? none).
Although it seems like most of the time the monsters saves are too high to really be effected by the Save or Die stuff (or maybe my GMs just don't like their monsters going down that way)... in which case, they are only really a tool for the monsters to use against the PCs.
Personally, I think it was a lousy idea to ever put them in the game, and I applaud Paizo/ Jason's efforts to remove/minimize their use.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Robert,
That's not a flaw in my arguement, that's exoneration. It's also a story that will be told around the table for a long time.
I think it was fine!
I was neither exonerating, or arguing your comments as a whole. I was merely adding a fact to your comments that seemed to indicate from your perspective that crappy BAB means 'to hit spells' aren't effective. I added the seemingly overlooked fact that the BAB is irrelevant with ranged touch - and is not the problem or barrier in most cases. Therefore using the BAB as basis for arguing that spells aren't powerful is not a valid point.
Robert
My misunderstanding. sorry, text is prone to strip emotional context. Dragons are the bad example of touch attacks though. A CR 7 Shadow Demon has a touch AC of 15 for example. Not nearly as reliable to hit ;-)
The biggest flaw in my 'it's fine' arguement are the average BAB full casters, and the Duskblade
I really want the save or dies to stay but if they are going to do damage make them do strait damage no dice
the one that does 12d6 should do 5 points a level with all the other ones doing 10 points a level
Just to add my own two bits here...
Having been on the receiving side of a save or die... my first thought was wow, that's lame. My second thought was what's on t.v.
I've seen other players get hit with save or suck or save or die effects and go off to play video games for the rest of the gaming session.
At that point, you're not having fun playing the game, because you're not playing the game.
As a player, sure it's fun to prepare spells that can really make an encounter much easier... but I can't forget a game we played where it was a 1 night deal to go after a Gargantuan Black Dragon... and my wizard on his Phantasmal mount flew up to the Dragon (having the "hide from dragon" spell active) and cast Irresistable dance... and the GM looked at me and begged me not to do it, since I would pretty much ruin the entire night's game session with 1 spell (how much of a challenge is it killing a dancing dragon? none).
Although it seems like most of the time the monsters saves are too high to really be effected by the Save or Die stuff (or maybe my GMs just don't like their monsters going down that way)... in which case, they are only really a tool for the monsters to use against the PCs.
Personally, I think it was a lousy idea to ever put them in the game, and I applaud Paizo/ Jason's efforts to remove/minimize their use.
Hmm, well see here is a difference in gameing styles. I guess I'm in the minority, but my desires for the game should be just as valid as yours. I like the gritty games where there is a very good chance your life could depend on a single (or couple) dice rolls.
Take our current campaign. We are playing in Eberron and encountered wererats at 2nd level. The "houserule" is that Lycanthropy is a strict no-no in the game. If you contract Lycanthropy, as soon as you fail your save and shapechange, you give the character sheet over to the DM and that character is effectively dead. At 2nd level you don't have the resources to "cure" lycanthropy unless your DM pulls some wussy "oh, the church will cure you, but you don't have the funds so they can request services of you". It made for a very scary and exciting combat, especially when one broke loose from the fray and charged my wizard who has a -2 Fort save. If he had tagged me, in all reality the character would probably contract Lycanthropy and be effectively dead.
We also play with the expanded Critical Hits and Fumbles rules from Dragon Compendium. This means that there are built-in Insta-kills for even the lowly fighters. Anything less and the game would feel too much like a video game with a pause and reset button.
the spells that have not been re-written are those that have a maximum number of HD affected. Which provides them with a built in regulator.
Spells like Finger of Death, Destruction, or Slay Living, do not have such a limit. And, as such, have been addressed/re-written.
See, this is understandable and I would be totally onboard for this. Why not just put HD limits on all the spells that didn't have the previously. This seems like a much simpler solution that would keep most of the pro save-or-die crowd happy (at least myself) while alleviating the issue of a 13th level wizard taking out a CR30 creature with one shot. It also seems to be easier to adjust then giving spells random amounts of damage like Slay Living.
|
|
I've got to agree with the above poster here. While revival of a character may not be an issue, it still certainly takes the player out of the game for the remainder of the fight and could take them out the rest of the session too.
Thats just not fun. The same thing goes for the monsters as well, its not a big deal against a mook type of creature, but taking out a BBEG in one shot like that is just a let down too. There isn't much sense of victory when its done that way.
I'm all for the idea of toning this down a bit, and damage seems a great way that the wizard can still hit hard in a way that stacks with what the rest of the group is doing, rather then essentially either ending the fight himself or not accomplishing anything.
-Tarlane
See, this is understandable and I would be totally onboard for this. Why not just put HD limits on all the spells that didn't have the previously. This seems like a much simpler solution that would keep most of the pro save-or-die crowd happy (at least myself) while alleviating the issue of a 13th level wizard taking out a CR30 creature with one shot. It also seems to be easier to adjust then giving spells random amounts of damage like Slay Living.the spells that have not been re-written are those that have a maximum number of HD affected. Which provides them with a built in regulator.
Spells like Finger of Death, Destruction, or Slay Living, do not have such a limit. And, as such, have been addressed/re-written.
My guess is, to bring them somewhat inline with spells that require X ammount of hp or be slain, or high damage SoD spells like Disintegrate.
Another reason would be to cut down on effects that have "absolute" effects. Dead? Yes or no.
I wouldn't be suprised to see other absolutes addressed, such as Energy Immunity (granting an insane resistance ammount while allowing for the possability of overcoming it).
This is likely to make most of my spellcasting players moderately happy.
See, many of them actually avoid casting save or die spells. Their logic is that they'd rather cast a spell that will do something to an opponent, even on a save, rather than cast a spell that might take an opponent out of the game if the dice roll their way. In their minds, a failed save or die spell is a waste of a round that could have been used dealing damage to an opponent.
Sure, when it's a BBEG who has displayed immunity or resistance to most of their damage spells, then they'll start taking the risk of the big payoff, but otherwise they tend to be more conservative in their tactics and spell choices.
I'll reserve judgement myself until I see how things actually go in a playtest.
Another reason would be to cut down on effects that have "absolute" effects. Dead? Yes or no.
See, that is an area that I just don't understand. What is wrong with absolutes? Personally, I really dislike "random". If I cast a Slay Living spell, it should slay the living, not cause 30-40 points of damage on a failed save (which is very easy with the low rolls our group seems to always make).
See, this is understandable and I would be totally onboard for this. Why not just put HD limits on all the spells that didn't have the previously. This seems like a much simpler solution that would keep most of the pro save-or-die crowd happy (at least myself) while alleviating the issue of a 13th level wizard taking out a CR30 creature with one shot. It also seems to be easier to adjust then giving spells random amounts of damage like Slay Living.
Actually, the Slay Living change is that one that sort of makes sense to me:
Inflict Light Wounds does 1d8 + 1/level
Inflict Moderate Wounds does 2d8 + 1/level
Inflict Serious Wounds does 3d8 + 1/level
Inflict Critical Wounds does 4d8 + 1/level
Slay Living does 12d6 + 1/level (previously, instant death)
Harm does 10/level
The progression seems more or less reasonable to me.
|
The massive damage save (only DC 15 in the 3.5 PHB) as an earlier poster observed is a joke, which (critical fumbles excepted) even the party wizard or rogue often has little difficulty making it seems to me.
If formerly 'save or die' effects are in many cases going to be changed to massive damage effects, could there please be an adjustment to the massive damage save considered, so that it perhaps gets tougher to make, the more massive the damage dealt is?
I wholeheartedly agree!
I recommend DC 15, +2 per 10 points over the massive damage threshhold for the creature.
|
|
The massive damage save (only DC 15 in the 3.5 PHB) as an earlier poster observed is a joke, which (critical fumbles excepted) even the party wizard or rogue often has little difficulty making it seems to me.
If formerly 'save or die' effects are in many cases going to be changed to massive damage effects, could there please be an adjustment to the massive damage save considered, so that it perhaps gets tougher to make, the more massive the damage dealt is?
We've never used "Death from massive damage" rules - just eliminate it IMO.
Robert
Wasn't the reasoning that instead of taking away the Save-or-die effects, getting back from the dead would be made easier?
I say go for that. There's already a spell that lets you resuscitate characters.
Add a "save-or-dying" rule, and bob's your uncle.
Massive damage can go, though.
If you don't want to do it, at least mark appropriate spells so people can houserule them back easily.
Hmm, well see here is a difference in gameing styles. I guess I'm in the minority, but my desires for the game should be just as valid as yours. I like the gritty games where there is a very good chance your life could depend on a single (or couple) dice rolls.
I didn't mean to say that your gaming style was invalid.
However, I think you can have tension/suspense/danger in a game w/o save or die. I had a Wizard killed in the prime of his life by a giant who got a little too close with a club. 1 or 2 rolls and the wizard was dead.
Yeah, it was a little suspenseful as I waited to see if he hit or worse, what the damage was. But, I had more control in that case. I could have chosen to play more cautiously... thus my death was my fault. Where a lot of spells have ranges of hundreds of feet... there's no player choice.
I could have chosen to play more cautiously... thus my death was my fault.
And that's the problem. If the only time your character dies is because you did something foolish, then there wasn't any danger to your character in the situation; the only risk to your character was from his player.
Without save-or-die, you can only be killed by incautious behavior or by the DM sending an overwhelming encounter. With save-or-die, the first level-appropriate encounter of the day actually carries a risk.
Now, this does mean the dice can derail the plot. This is not a defect; this is desirable. It keeps things a game, not a (collaborative) story.
So, I have a simple question to those who are in favor of the old "Save or Die" spell mechanics.
Do you honestly believe a 13th lvl wizard (Finger of Death) or a 9th lvl cleric (Slay Living) should have the power, albiet a 5% chance, of outright slaying a CR 30 opponent?
What, this CR 30 opponent has zero SR? Well, then, yes.
Especially, when there are no classes (short of a 15th lvl druid) can make that very same claim?
If CR 30 with no SR is contemplated, then I assume CR 30 with AC 10 can be contemplated, too. In which case a 6th-level character with one level of assassin isn't much behind that 5%.
I could have chosen to play more cautiously... thus my death was my fault.And that's the problem. If the only time your character dies is because you did something foolish, then there wasn't any danger to your character in the situation; the only risk to your character was from his player.
Without save-or-die, you can only be killed by incautious behavior or by the DM sending an overwhelming encounter. With save-or-die, the first level-appropriate encounter of the day actually carries a risk.
Now, this does mean the dice can derail the plot. This is not a defect; this is desirable. It keeps things a game, not a (collaborative) story.
This quote here is the crux of the problem.
There are different ways to play D&D, none of them are wrong. A large portion of the people playing (especially since 3e opened up the audience) want to play a game that is also a collaborative story. Yes they still want some random chance, but they don't want plot lines and story lines completely ruined or taken to a completely different level. The DM and the players all want one kind of story, and the dice sometimes prevents that from happening.
There is also a large portion (I might call this the gygaxian front), that enjoy playing this as a Game with a capital G. With wargaming roots, they want the dice to tell the story of what happened, not some script the DM came up with, or the players are forcing to happen.
The reason? Because sometimes you might do things you didn't think of, and the story might go in very different and wonderful places your train of thought wouldn't have gone otherwise.
Neither of these methods of gaming are badwrongfun. Even the extremist versions of these processes (rolling to see what your gender and age are, or the most rules heavy part of the game being a Jenga set), can be fun. I've played the "roll em up natural, play what you get" for a lark, and my current gaming group (while I'm not able to participate) enjoys a horror game using the Jenga set.
People do have a preference though. That's why things like Action Points were created, so Players can have more control over their part of the story, despite the random chance of the dice.
...
In the end, the SOME part of the rules are going to get in the way of either side of gaming.
It's possible the only way to appease both sides is to have an "Alternate Rules" sidebar for some of these spells or mechanics that detail a more "collaborative friendly" mechanic. Damage instead of insta-death. Secondary or more rolls instead of single pass or fail. Etc.
This would give both rules to use, so the DM and players can decide which they want to play with, and no matter which they choose it will be part of the core rules. There would simply be a provision or "ask your DM" type thing.
This gives workable, balanced rules for both camps too, so you don't have to worry about House Rules being created for each group, and Conventions can decide what they'll want to use as "Standard" as well.
Neither of these methods of gaming are badwrongfun.
Looking up the thread, the Pathfinder RPG developer clearly said my preference is bad for the game and not fun.
Neither of these methods of gaming are badwrongfun.Looking up the thread, the Pathfinder RPG developer clearly said my preference is bad for the game and not fun.
Clearly I'm not Pathfinder, nor Jason.
I'M saying neither method is badwrongfun. I'm also saying that Jason and Pathfinder should change to allow both to exist in the one ruleset.
That was what the last part of my post was saying, a suggestion on how to give the best of both worlds (a sidebar or subsection for alternative rules).
I'm failing to see how 10hp/level damage on a failed save doesn't carry with it significant chance of death for characters anyway.
That was my reaction, too. 100+ damage might be cause for yawns in other people's games, but not in the ones I've played in!
One alternate idea I came up with is to have "death" spells deal Con damage instead (like 1 pt of Con damage per caster level, for instance).