More constructively, if the powers that be insist on changing the current crop of SoDs, I submit that the best way to do this while maintaining the feel and backwards compatability of the game is to introduce "bennies" (reroll tokens) or change each effect to require two saves, with death/suckitude only happening with both saves failing (and some lesser negative effect on a single failed save).
I'd be okay with borrowing the Phantasmal Killer's mechanic, yeah, especially with an option for DMs to do it the old way, for backwards compatibility. We agree on that.
I'd be even more in favor of the "Ticking Time Bomb" approach advanced in another thread, with SoD effects causing nausea and ability damage or hit point damage every round until character death. That's dramatic and it promotes team work.
I think one of our blocks is that I don't regard initiative rolls as instant death effects and it's largely due to my perception from high level campaigns that casters turn all melee fighters into something as useful as a kobold. YMMV, and clearly does.
|
I'd be even more in favor of the "Ticking Time Bomb" approach advanced in another thread, with SoD effects causing nausea and ability damage or hit point damage every round until character death. That's dramatic and it promotes team work.
My only problem with this is the bookkeeping it would entail.
I think one of our blocks is that I don't regard initiative rolls as instant death effects and it's largely due to my perception from high level campaigns that casters turn all melee fighters into something as useful as a kobold. YMMV, and clearly does.
I was just using the initiative roll as one example. I could just as easily have used a Search roll when a rogue is looking for traps, or other situations where a d20 roll is effectively a SoD.
The thing about high level casters: they still need their meatshields, and they run out of spells.
The thing about high level fighters: their sword never runs out of charges.
In high(-ish) level games I've been in, most casters avoided the SoD spells because they don't want to risk losing an action/spell on something that might not work. It seemed like a self-correcting problem to me in that regard. Yeah, it'd be great if you polymorphed the dragon into a goldfish, but if (when) he makes his save, you are one less spell and he's out nothing at all. That kind of thing. I think that in games where PCs can do the "15 minute workday" thing at higher levels, it produces the effect you are seeing. If the pace of the adventure requires that the party can't wait around, then spell conservation is more important and that limitless swordarm comes into play much more (same as with Spell Resistance).
But I am glad to see we can find a middle ground on the subject. =)
The thing about high level casters: they still need their meatshields, and they run out of spells.
The thing about high level fighters: their sword never runs out of charges.In high(-ish) level games I've been in, most casters avoided the SoD spells because they don't want to risk losing an action/spell on something that might not work. It seemed like a self-correcting problem to me in that regard. Yeah, it'd be great if you polymorphed the dragon into a goldfish, but if (when) he makes his save, you are one less spell and he's out nothing at all. That kind of thing. I think that in games where PCs can do the "15 minute workday" thing at higher levels, it produces the effect you are seeing. If the pace of the adventure requires that the party can't wait around, then spell conservation is more important and that limitless swordarm comes into play much more (same as with Spell Resistance).
But I am glad to see we can find a middle ground on the subject. =)
In my experience, teleport and scrolls with free-action bandoliers means never running out of spells while adventuring.
In my games, it tends to go battlefield control spells, SoD, then tactical nukes.
|
|
There are some players, and DMs, who believe Save or Die is so anti-climatic, un-cinematic, uncharacteristic of great story telling, that they refuse to use it.
For example, what if you were watching Raiders Of The Lost Ark, scene 1, and it was Indy who tested the poison arrow by touching it, licking his finger, realizing it was poison, and spitting it out?
Well, save or die could have ended the hero's story in scene 1.
In d&d, the people who feel this way ask, "What's the point of having the character simply open a door, touch a deadly contact poison on the knob, and die?" What is the point?
Having said all of that, I am not one of those players or DMs. I use save or die, as written in the rules, and where written. However, I use it sparingly. I believe in its continued use because it provides a "reality" that says somethings are very deadly, somethings will kill your character instantly. I wouldn't have my game any other way. =)
If he doesn't cast a spell but blasts you with a wand, you just did nothing and have to ready again next round?
I am pretty sure using a wand still counts as casting a spell for things like readied actions.
Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.
Yup, there you go, still casting a spell.
|
If he doesn't cast a spell but blasts you with a wand, you just did nothing and have to ready again next round?
I am pretty sure using a wand still counts as casting a spell for things like readied actions.
Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.Yup, there you go, still casting a spell.
When we started playing 3.0, we had a DM who would claim this loophole.
"I ready to disrupt him casting a spell."
"OK, then; he fires a wand...you waste your readied action."
Needless to say, we soon got fed up of this, and read the rules better.
While using a wand doesn't provoke an AoO, searching for it might, and drawing it might (for casters with +0 BAB).
Not to mention that using the wand is still casting a spell, as pointed out by pres man and the SRD. The fact that he's casting with a stick in his hand doesn't make the casting time any less, or stop the opponent from interrupting him.
So using the wand still provokes the readied disrupt action, rather than an AoO.
Actually casting from memory vs a readied foe would provoke both (Ouch!).
If the DM can do One-Shot attacks ( bang : you're dead) the players must be able to do so also
And yes , this means that the climax of the adventure with MR Big Evil Boss the players have been waiting for 3 months can be over after one attack . Fair is Fair
Yup. I remember the party was going to approach the king that had become a liche, but had used magic to disguise this (technically he died and thus had lost the throne, but if nobody knew ...). With a few good bluffs the diplomat of the party was able to approach the king and surprise him with a dispell (removing his illusions so the royal court could see him for what he was) and then the party cleric with the sun domain and a phylactery of undead turning (which was originally give to the paladin since the party didn't have a cleric at the time). Needless to say, my BBEG dropped before he even got a single action, and there I was sitting with my stack of spell descriptions printed off so I wouldn't have to look them up. *grumble, grumble* Thank goodness for psychotic minions or the encounter would have been a total quickie.
|
Wizard getting mauled by a dire lion SoD is just bad DMing (not to mention the Powerattacking Giant senario). Honestly go back to DM school. It's great if you are running your game in a mini's battle style where it's DM vs PCs tactical skirmish. Some people LOVE that (me too sometimes). But Roleplaying wise it's a crock. My dire lions (or powerattacking giant whatever) will take off with the wizard to his lair or something vaugely interesting.
So there are 2 types of issues here... the "just pay for a raise dead already" which changes SoD to Save or Miss-a-turn (session ... whatever) and takes the challenge out of death (and maybe the game) entirely, so PCs really do start decideing their own stopping points
OR
SoD and you are gone! Byebye character? Well in that case death is great when it's a very rare occurance but too much and people stop investing in characters and their backgrounds and it DOES devolve into a mini's tornament. Frankly at my table we could always to with a little more RP opportunity.
Really it just depends on what game you want to run. My PCs decide when they want too role up a new character and we work death out together, they go down to the line of -10 but it's up to them. I tend not to kill anyone totally unless there is a high level cleric with a geas spell or an adventure hook someplace close by. It works well that way for us. Wouldn't recommend it for everyone though.
|
|
Yup. I remember the party was going to approach the king that had become a liche, but had used magic to disguise this (technically he died and thus had lost the throne, but if nobody knew ...). With a few good bluffs the diplomat of the party was able to approach the king and surprise him with a dispell (removing his illusions so the royal court could see him for what he was) and then the party cleric with the sun domain and a phylactery of undead turning (which was originally give to the paladin since the party didn't have a cleric at the time). Needless to say, my BBEG dropped before he even got a single action, and there I was sitting with my stack of spell descriptions printed off so I wouldn't have to look them up. *grumble, grumble* Thank goodness for psychotic minions or the encounter would have been a total quickie.
How is that any fun though? I don't see the fact that the players can do it a balance. Its not enjoyable to have the players sit out for no reason. A SoD is no reason. If a barbarian is close enough to be power attacking your wizard, then you probably screwed up somewhere and I can accept that. No problem with deaths, just don't like deaths where the players being reasonable prepared doesn't help. And no, having deathward on constantly and ensuring your characters eyes are always covered isn't reasonable.
It isn't enjoyable to have the villians dropped like that either, for the players that is three months of buildup to an instant where instead of having an epic battle that will be talked about later the enemy is suddenly just dust and they are left shrugging their shoulders going 'Oh, ok.' and walking off.
If you want everyone to be involved in the telling it should be a concerted effort and a struggle, not just whoever managed to get off a spell.
-Tarlane
|
|
Wizard getting mauled by a dire lion SoD is just bad DMing (not to mention the Powerattacking Giant senario). Honestly go back to DM school. It's great if you are running your game in a mini's battle style where it's DM vs PCs tactical skirmish. Some people LOVE that (me too sometimes). But Roleplaying wise it's a crock. My dire lions (or powerattacking giant whatever) will take off with the wizard to his lair or something vaugely interesting.
Hey, thanks for the personal attack. Yeah, I guess my DMing degree I got back in 82 is worthless without the benefit of your continuing education classes. Moron.
I guess it didn't occur to you that the dire lion in question might not have been acting of it's own free will? Say, perhaps it was SUMMONED (Nature's Ally), or CHARMED (Ring of Animal Friendship)? But thanks for the DM lession, I'm sure someone out there reading your post cares.
|
Wizard getting mauled by a dire lion SoD is just bad DMing (not to mention the Powerattacking Giant senario). Honestly go back to DM school. It's great if you are running your game in a mini's battle style where it's DM vs PCs tactical skirmish. Some people LOVE that (me too sometimes). But Roleplaying wise it's a crock. My dire lions (or powerattacking giant whatever) will take off with the wizard to his lair or something vaugely interesting.
Hey, thanks for the personal attack. Yeah, I guess my DMing degree I got back in 82 is worthless without the benefit of your continuing education classes. Moron.
I guess it didn't occur to you that the dire lion in question might not have been acting of it's own free will? Say, perhaps it was SUMMONED (Nature's Ally), or CHARMED (Ring of Animal Friendship)? But thanks for the DM lession, I'm sure someone out there reading your post cares.
Actually what I think prankster was trying to say is that the Dire Lion example just comes across as a Dm being out to kill a player (not saying thats the case just the way it comes across as)
On a side note resorting to name calling does not exactly warm peoplr up to your side of the argument.
|
|
Actually what I think prankster was trying to say is that the Dire Lion example just comes across as a Dm being out to kill a player (not saying thats the case just the way it comes across as)
On a side note resorting to name calling does not exactly warm peoplr up to your side of the argument.
Tell that to the guy who takes my example and tells me that I'm a lousy DM and that I should go back to "DM school". That was a personal attack, and if he meant it any other way, he should have been more careful with his words. But hey, if wants to appologize, I'll be happy to forgive.
An example of a DM "out to kill a player" is more along the lines of the 15 medusas example earlier, an anti-SoD position. A grappling monster attacking a low AC, low HP character is not.
|
|
<SNIP>
Or just take the Leadership feat and play your cohort. With a feat at every level in Pathfinder, there's little reason NOT to have a cohort, especially at the levels where the SoD effects supposedly get so hot and heavy.
There's a feat at every level? I thought it was every other level?
Oops! I meant every other level. I must have been thinking of Pathfinder fighters when I wrote that. My bad.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hello. Terrific thread topic!
I agree with Twowolves assertion that "save or die" is a special case of "roll well or die" or "a die roll determines whether you'll be stuck for a while" situations (massive damage, paralysis, domination and Dexterity rolls to avoid the pool of superheated magma are other examples). And I agree with the assertion that these situations should be the result of deliberate player choice or bad decisions
Sometimes situations crop up where character success / happiness / longevity depends on die rolls. If the DM presents those to the party, repeatedly, without warning or ways to avoid them, I don't think it's the game system's fault.
|
|
Tell that to the guy who takes my example and tells me that I'm a lousy DM and that I should go back to "DM school". That was a personal attack.
Fair enough.
In regards to the dire Lion example I would argue that there are a lot more factors in play than in a dm (or player using a Sod)
A quick list off the top of my head would be
1 position of the wizard in relation to the lion when it goes to make its attack (this can make the lions malling of the wizard vary from very easy to very hard depending on distance and whether or not other pc's are in the way)
2 In order to initiate the grapple the lion has to hit with its bite attack (again this can vary from very hard to very easy depending on what defensive spells and equipment the wizard has on him at the time
3 it has to win the grapple (which admitadly the lion most probably will unless he rolls really badly and the mage really well
4 it has to do enough damage to kill the wizard before the rest of the party kill it (This depends on how many hp the wizard has and how much damage the lion does with its attacks so another somewhat swingy one there)
wheras with a sod its a case off
1 is person in line of sight?
2 roll save
Sometimes situations crop up where character success / happiness / longevity depends on die rolls. If the DM presents those to the party, repeatedly, without warning or ways to avoid them, I don't think it's the game system's fault.
I'm sympathetic to both sides of the argument.
On the one hand, if "save-or-die" effects are used sparingly, then they can add some spice to an adventure; stumbling across a medusa unexpectedly can be exciting, for instance!
On the other hand, I don't see why people are so dead set against Finger of Death doing 150 points of damage instead of instant death (for instance). That seems deadly enough to me.
|
|
In regards to the dire Lion example I would argue that there are a lot more factors in play than in a dm (or player using a Sod)
A quick list off the top of my head would be
1 position of the wizard in relation to the lion when it goes to make its attack (this can make the lions malling of the wizard vary from very easy to very hard depending on distance and whether or not other pc's are in the way)
2 In order to initiate the grapple the lion has to hit with its bite attack (again this can vary from very hard to very easy depending on what defensive spells and equipment the wizard has on him at the time
3 it has to win the grapple (which admitadly the lion most probably will unless he rolls really badly and the mage really well
4 it has to do enough damage to kill the wizard before the rest of the party kill it (This depends on how many hp the wizard has and how much damage the lion does with its attacks so another somewhat swingy one there)
wheras with a sod its a case off
1 is person in line of sight?
2 roll save
I see where you are coming from. Since this was from a game I ran, I can answer all of the points you raise, since it wasn't a hypothetical. The party was being stalked by a pride of dire lions ruled over by a manticore. They were in the open, in a valley, and were surrounded as they were moving. Admittedly, the wizard's player took a chance by being away from the group somewhat. The rest of the party was running to an overturned cart to help any survivors, and he being a dwarf, was lagging behind somewhat. Precisely the target a stalking lion would jump on. Even with some buffs up, his AC was under 20, easy for a dire lion to chomp. Likewise with the grapple (large strong animal, weak mage). The initial pounce left him hurting, a second round would leave him dead. The rest of the party might have been able to stop it, had they not had the rest of the pride plus the manticore to contend with.
Admittedly, the "save or die" moment took a couple of other rolls to set up, but the character's fate was still determined by a single d20 roll. But even with most any other situation you come up with regarding a traditional save or die effect, there are circumstances that can easily mitigate, avoid or undo the effects. Most gaze attacks can be avoided simply by closing your eyes. Most spells can be literally countered or prevented (Prismatic Wall/Shpere, Antimagic Shell, Globe of Invulnerability, Mind Blank, Death Ward), and death is very rarely permenant.
But like I said earlier, if it absolutely MUST be changed, changing to just piling on damage seems a poor fix. Either have death be a result of bombing two rolls, or introduce a reroll hero point/bennie option to reduce the likelyhood of failure. Always failing on a "natural 1" goes from a 5% chance to a 0.25% chance with a reroll allowed. 1 in 400 rolls. That safe enough?
But like I said earlier, if it absolutely MUST be changed, changing to just piling on damage seems a poor fix.
Why? What specifically do you dislike about it?
|
|
But like I said earlier, if it absolutely MUST be changed, changing to just piling on damage seems a poor fix.
How about as some have said change it so instead of save or die it could be save or diening? (drops you to -9 so that a party member at least has a small chance of stopping you from buying it)
How is that any fun though?
Because everything else that lead up to it, and because I, the DM, didn't place the entire encounter on one character (just a big part of it). The chance that the lich would have been killed out right was pretty good, but it wasn't guaranteed (I think they had to roll a 14 or better or something, it was a cohort cleric). But everyone around the table, even those whose characters were waiting outside of the throne room (only the aristocrat and her "guard" were allowed in), was like, "Holy crap! That worked! Awesome!" Sometimes making the game winning shot from half-court is exciting.
[720] SAVE... OR... DIE! [/720]
If you're a low HP character like a wizard, then a lot of spells are effectively save or die, even if they aren't for others. For instance, in the next-to-last Savage Tide adventure, you get to face two arcanaloths who both cast chain lightning as 12th-level casters. Even a 19th-level wizard would have a heck of a time surviving that — and that's just their opening move! But if high-level spells don't do high-level damage, then they're no good at all.
|
|
But like I said earlier, if it absolutely MUST be changed, changing to just piling on damage seems a poor fix.Why? What specifically do you dislike about it?
Well, the main reason, for me, would be: Why is it a death spell? What makes it different from a really powerful fireball?
My suggestion is to do damage but make that damage drop the MAXIMUM hit points until Restoration is cast. That would make it less instant death, but would still give the party the feel of this being something nasty and feeling different. It would also keep non-spellcasters as involved as the damage wouldn't necessarily be fatal.
|
|
But like I said earlier, if it absolutely MUST be changed, changing to just piling on damage seems a poor fix.Why? What specifically do you dislike about it?
Because it turns a lot of different spells into one spell: Harm.
Slay Living, Finger of Death, Disintegrate, Death Spell, just all become damage. In days of old, once you got past Cone of Cold, almost all the higher level spells did something besides damage. It became almost a rock/paper/scissors exercise. Many things were just flat out immune to bigger and bigger piles of damage. You had to sidestep the threat by doing something besides damage. And this doesn't address the other "save or suck" spells, like Flesh to Stone, Maze, Otto's Irrestible Dance, Baleful Polymorph, Magic Jar, etc etc.
Well, personally the group I game with and myself prefer the danger of save-or-die spells. It adds that "realism" to the game, like the possibility of walking down the street and being the victim of a drive-by shooting. The storylines are fine and all, but there needs to be a certain possibility that things go wrong, not because the player made a mistake, but just because "crap" happens.
As to the comments about how it isn't fun for a player, what about when a character is taken hostage? For example, if a character is taken hostage by an NPC and the group has to find a way to rescue him. That could take hours, or possibly more than one game session (has happened in our campaigns) where the player is waiting to be rescued. How is that any different than if the character had died and the player had to create and introduce a new character to the group?
I also dislike the idea of converting SOD spells to just a bunch of damage. That makes it more likely that the "big hit dice" characters have a better chance of surviving than the ones with less hit points. I would have preferred to see a "time delayed" or "multiple save" implementation to all the SOD spells.
The more that people talk about making SoD special and different while struggling to retain the drama, the more that I like the idea of the Ticking Time Bomb (5d6 every round and no combat actions until dispelled, countered, or subject is dead): it's unique, dramatic, promotes teamwork... The benefits go on and on....
I did the old read the first 20 and the last 10, but I think a lot of what is being discussed here is old mechanics (from 1e and before) meeting 3.5 mechanics. Most of the games I played throughout the 80s, everyone rolled up and played two characters. This was fine at the time as most games tended to be dungeon crawls. When one of your characters died, you rolled up a new one and he joined the party at some convenient time in the future. In the intervening two decades, role-playing which was an important part of the game before, became the central part of the game, which is definitely good. It is hard, however, to role-play two separate characters, so by the time 3.5 arrived almost everyone played a single character. If you are running two characters, SoD is nowhere near as annoying as it is with one. Of course, with twice as many characters splitting up the party was more common forcing DMs to run without certain players as neither of their characters had joined one specific group.
But like I said earlier, if it absolutely MUST be changed, changing to just piling on damage seems a poor fix.Why? What specifically do you dislike about it?
Well, the main reason, for me, would be: Why is it a death spell? What makes it different from a really powerful fireball?
They aren't particularly different in Pathfinder. They weren't particularly different in 3.5 (IMO). A death spell and a really powerful fireball would both kill you on a failed save (without the proper immunity/resistance).
Because it turns a lot of different spells into one spell: Harm.
To be fair, death spells (Slay Living, Finger of Death, Destruction) are pretty much identical in 3.5 as well.
Slay Living, Finger of Death, Disintegrate, Death Spell, just all become damage. In days of old, once you got past Cone of Cold, almost all the higher level spells did something besides damage. It became almost a rock/paper/scissors exercise. Many things were just flat out immune to bigger and bigger piles of damage. You had to sidestep the threat by doing something besides damage.
I'm not sure which monsters are immune to piles of damage. Certainly some creatures have huge numbers of hit points, but that doesn't mean they're impossible to defeat with hit point damage. And it seemed that most people were complaining that the changes to death spells made things too easy for PCs (who are rarely immune to big piles of damage).
And this doesn't address the other "save or suck" spells, like Flesh to Stone, Maze, Otto's Irrestible Dance, Baleful Polymorph, Magic Jar, etc etc.
Of course, although from a PCs point of view those spells are a bit easier to reverse (either limited duration or don't require expensive material components to dispel).
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not really sold on Pathfinder's change to death spells either. But I don't really see the huge difference between a spell that does a huge amount of hit point damage and instant death.
Thanks to Rouge for this wonderful piece of feedback!
I see. So now I'm "whiney" because I disagree with you. Perhaps you would care to offer an actual argument rather than just toss ad hominem attacks?
Sorry for the delay, I've been moving into my first house ;)
Any yes, rouge, the wonderful response you gifted me with does qualify as whining. After all, whining is just anger squeezed through a teeny-tiny pipe.
I didn't disrespect your opinion, I simply stated mine. Ad hominem attacks require a target to be ad hominem attacks, "bravely" throwing yourself in front of one doesn't count.
As to the mechanic:
SoD is a tricky thing. Remove it, and you can kiss off using necromancers or death magic centric characters at all. Keep it, and eventually the wizard will be the target of Power Word Kill and whine about how it was impossible to make his save.
Strangely enough, I never hear these arguments when death comes from a failed save vs. a 15D6 delayed blast fireball. Or a Old Red Dragon full attack action with 10 point power attack option. Same result, different path. Hell, you don't even get a save when the dragon tears you to pieces.
Is it SoD that is the culprit here? Or just the fact that players die?
In 16 years of gaming, I have never witnessed a player sidelined for more than 20 minutes. They either found something enjoyable to do and bit the bullet, were drafted as co-DM, or brought back.
There is no such thing as a game that is "fun" all the time. This is generally proportional to the amount of emotional investment one has in the game being played.
Simple solution: Agree before campaign starts how it's gonna play out. Go over the house rules and have everyone agree. Then play the game the way it is meant to be played. The dice do not lie. They do not cheat, hold grudges, or play silly games either. Most importantly, the one thing they do NOT do is pull punches. If you rolled a 1 on your finger of death save...sorry, you DEAD.
How is this a bad thing? I bring you back to the dragon example, and pose a question. If said dragon encounter involved 7 rounds, 1 surprise and 6 combat rounds, and each one of them involved a character being rended to death, burnt to a cinder, or ensorcelled into oblivion, is this REALLY any different than having most of the party roll poorly and fall to a death spell?
|
|
quote=Twowlves]Because it turns a lot of different spells into one spell: Harm.
To be fair, death spells (Slay Living, Finger of Death, Destruction) are pretty much identical in 3.5 as well.
True, but now more and more of them are identical to one spell. Whereas you had 3 similar spells (which in truth were all approximations of a "reversible" spell in earlier editions, and sort of grandfathered into the game), now you have what, half a dozen or more, all now identical to Harm? the Death descriptor is now just like Fire or Sonic? Bleh.
Slay Living, Finger of Death, Disintegrate, Death Spell, just all become damage. In days of old, once you got past Cone of Cold, almost all the higher level spells did something besides damage. It became almost a rock/paper/scissors exercise. Many things were just flat out immune to bigger and bigger piles of damage. You had to sidestep the threat by doing something besides damage.I'm not sure which monsters are immune to piles of damage. Certainly some creatures have huge numbers of hit points, but that doesn't mean they're impossible to defeat with hit point damage. And it seemed that most people were complaining that the changes to death spells made things too easy for PCs (who are rarely immune to big piles of damage).
Anything with an immunity to a damage type (Immune to Fire) is immune to piles of damage, but I was thinking of monsters in previous editions that you couldn't deal with by just heaping damage on them, or that doing so was an impractical option (like the Yeth Hound of old). Admittedly, this doesn't hold true in 3.x/PRPG, but it was the mindset of the day that just more damage isn't a good replacement for taking the foe out in another way.
And this doesn't address the other "save or suck" spells, like Flesh to Stone, Maze, Otto's Irrestible Dance, Baleful Polymorph, Magic Jar, etc etc.Of course, although from a PCs point of view those spells are a bit easier to reverse (either limited duration or don't require expensive material components to dispel).
But the thing is, many of these are as good as death. If you are helpless, you are one full-round action from death or worse. It was common to Polymorph an airbreathing foe into a fish, for example, or to shatter the victim of a Flesh to Stone. I agree about the lack of an expensive material component, but still, most any harmful effect that can be visited upon your character can be undone by magic that's already in the core rules. The only factor is the degree of difficulty in aquiring the reversal, which by it's nature is a campaign specific (and thus, mostly out of the scope of the basic ruleset) issue.
The more that people talk about making SoD special and different while struggling to retain the drama, the more that I like the idea of the Ticking Time Bomb (5d6 every round and no combat actions until dispelled, countered, or subject is dead): it's unique, dramatic, promotes teamwork... The benefits go on and on....
I wouldn't be averse to this idea. While I do think SoD effects are an integral part of what make creatures monstrous, I could see the potential benefit of some sort of cumulative damage rates for SoD effects to give the rest of the party a chance to react to what just struck the victim. But it'd better be a quick reaction on their part, cause death is coming on fast. I could even see a delayed reaction to SoD effects, something that puts the character into shock and gives them a round or two before the poison stops their heart, their brain shuts down, etc.
I also agree with several posters that there isn't much of a difference between an instant SoD death effect from a failed Fireball save that incinerates you well beyond your hp total or failed Cone of Cold save that turns you into a popsicle.
excellent points, just what DO you replace SoD with that will remain somewhat balanced?
Excess damage just penalizes folks with low hit dice/fort saves.
Typed damage penalizes anyone(thing) that isn't resistant to it.
an interesting topic if there ver was one.
|
|
There are some players, and DMs, who believe Save or Die is so anti-climatic, un-cinematic, uncharacteristic of great story telling, that they refuse to use it.
For example, what if you were watching Raiders Of The Lost Ark, scene 1, and it was Indy who tested the poison arrow by touching it, licking his finger, realizing it was poison, and spitting it out?
Well, save or die could have ended the hero's story in scene 1.
IMHO, what you saw in that scene was a successful use of the Find Traps/Search/Perception (with some taste perception check bonus maybe) skill check, not a saving throw at all.
But I see what you mean. It's the "Flopsy" syndrome (character flops over dead, then hops back up when cured/fixed the next round).
|
|
Actually what I think prankster was trying to say is that the Dire Lion example just comes across as a Dm being out to kill a player (not saying thats the case just the way it comes across as)
On a side note resorting to name calling does not exactly warm peoplr up to your side of the argument.Tell that to the guy who takes my example and tells me that I'm a lousy DM and that I should go back to "DM school". That was a personal attack, and if he meant it any other way, he should have been more careful with his words. But hey, if wants to appologize, I'll be happy to forgive.
An example of a DM "out to kill a player" is more along the lines of the 15 medusas example earlier, an anti-SoD position. A grappling monster attacking a low AC, low HP character is not.
Hey 2wolves ... I'll send you a PM
but for the public record I'm sorry how that came out as a personal attack - it wasn't intended to be (thoughtless though it was). I was refering to a bunch of examples that seem too be DM vs PC rather than a SoD mechanic. We were all quoteing the example and as I of course have no idea of the circumstanses of your personal game I cannot make comment. Apologies for singling out one example and argueing the specific to the general. I'd have been as upset as you in the circumstance.Thanks Kevin Mack you had it right.
|
|
Hey 2wolves ... I'll send you a PM
but for the public record I'm sorry how that came out as a personal attack - it wasn't intended to be (thoughtless though it was). I was refering to a bunch of examples that seem too be DM vs PC rather than a SoD mechanic. We were all quoteing the example and as I of course have no idea of the circumstanses of your personal game I cannot make comment. Apologies for singling out one example and argueing the specific to the general. I'd have been as upset as you in the circumstance.
It takes a lot to admit fault, and a lot more to apologize. Sorry it came to heated (typewritten) words. Apology accepted, and another extended for my strong response(s).
Twowolves Howling
Save-or-dies are very, very satisfying, I've found, when they work. When they don't, yeah, you're disappointed, but you're always disappointed when the bad guys makes his save. Concurrently, making your save against a save-or-die is sooooooo relieving that it's usually worth the risk.
That said, failing your save against a save-or-die is decidedly un-fun, since it usually feels like you just lost your character for no fault of your own. So, the house rule which I like to use is that save-or-dies drop you to -8 hit points and falling (I also use the you-die-at-negative-Con-score rule, so this usually means you have at least three or four rounds to stabilize). This doesn't diminish the fun of using a save-or-die, means it's possible for the BBEG's cleric to heal him back up, and means if you get hit by one, you're not totally screwed.
Frankly I don't think save or dies are any less fun when you fail than:
1)getting surprised by a rogue (sneak attack!) and then losing initiative to them (sneak attack! sneak attack!) and being killed before you even got a turn. (this happened to a gnome cleric of mine)
2)getting crit'ed 2 1/2 rounds in a row (out of something like 9 attacks), the 1/2 round being when you attempt to tumble away and fail your check, getting killed by that third crit. (this happened to my monk/cleric player on Sat)
Dying isn't fun, especially when it feels like the dice screwed you (failed tumble, low initiative).
Frankly I don't think save or dies are any less fun when you fail than:
1)getting surprised by a rogue (sneak attack!) and then losing initiative to them (sneak attack! sneak attack!) and being killed before you even got a turn. (this happened to a gnome cleric of mine)
2)getting crit'ed 2 1/2 rounds in a row (out of something like 9 attacks), the 1/2 round being when you attempt to tumble away and fail your check, getting killed by that third crit. (this happened to my monk/cleric player on Sat)
Dying isn't fun, especially when it feels like the dice screwed you (failed tumble, low initiative).
I don't mind save-or-die effects being used sparingly against PCs; a gorgon or bodak can give a party a good scare.
What I don't care for is PCs using save-or-die spells on tough monsters. To me, casting save-or-die spells is like playing roulette (where there's no strategy involved in any given spin of the wheel -- you either win or lose) when I'd rather play backgammon (where strategy and luck are both needed in order to succeed). (Some people like roulette, though.)
In your two examples, there were a wide range of possible results (from being hurt not at all to dying); for a save-or-die, there are exactly two results, one (or both) of which are quite boring.
If you know you are going up against a dragon and the wizard walks up and gets in melee range then he can't really gripe when he gets splattered.
Forewarned is forearmed and there is a reason there are plate/shield bearers in the game. Let them go first!
Choosing to face a dragon and dying- whether to melee or to breath attack or whatever- isn't really a fate i've heard anyone gripe about.
Knowing you are tracking a medusa and getting turned into stone?
Also, not somthing folks gripe about.
It sucks, for sure, to be Implosioned by a (pit fiend? balor? i forget which), but by the time you are facing them you should dang well know that is what you are facing, and you should have been taking precautions.
The problems with SoDs are two fold:
One: DM's using SOD
If the PC's have NO clue that it's in the works, then its SURPRISE! Roll or the DM kills you. Period. Whether its adversarial or not, it certainly feels like it to have a completely random encounter that has the very real potential to wipe the group in one roll of a d20.
Death happens. It shouldn't necessarily be "climactic" (sometimes the pit trap kills you. It's not cinematic, but you aren't any less dead) but it shouldn't be Stupid and relatively arbitrary.
If the DM wants a new campaign that badly the proper method is to Tell the PC's he wants to restart. TPK not required.
Two: Players using SOD.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander
except that by and large PC's have much higher saves and
their spells tend to require much higher saves.
the Wizard/CLeric/Full caster wandering a dungeon on SOD Mode
just destroys everything. There is no challenge or fun and it makes
no sense for the player to memorize fireball when he can memorize "Kill you all in one spell" as many times as he can do so.
Sure damage can be fun sometimes but why bother when you can cast Weird or Polymorph Other: Hedgehog?
The DM of course can either watch his critters die or he can retaliate with his own SOD barrage which just means that each encounter ends with whoever gets highest Init and eventually the PC's lose and it's .. scenario one all over again. TPK.
No one here has yet argued that D&D should be a game where no one dies.
I do not think however that anyone here would argue about which of the scenarios below is preferred:
The PC's having mercilessly hunted through the Bandit Lord's hidden stronghold, finally come to the BL's throne room. Charging in, they are beset by a small fist of angry bandits who stayed to guard their lord. The PC Wizard stands center and casts SOD. The Lord and his entourage all die.
The PC's having mercilessly hunted through the Bandit Lord's hidden stronghold, finally come to the BL's throne room. Charging in, they are beset by a small fist of angry bandits who stayed to guard their lord. From behind the Bandit Lord comes an ancient wrinkled one crone who extends her hands at the party and casts SOD. The party all die.
The PC's having mercilessly hunted through the Bandit Lord's hidden stronghold, finally come to the BL's throne room. Charging in, they are beset by a small fist of angry bandits who stayed to guard their lord. A harsh battle ensues as the PC's try to block the BL's escape while smashing in the skulls of his minions. A titanic battle for supremacy is waged between the young PC mage and the venerable crone, but through blood and toil the PC's reign victorious if not unscathed in the encounter. The Bandit Lord finally falls to the mighty blade of the Fighter (or barbarian or whatever).
I think we'd all agree that from the PC and DM perspective the 3rd battle is far more "fun". If a PC ended up whacked in the 3rd encounter, or even if the whole party ended up dying and the BL won the fight- i think it would end up being fairly memorable.
The first scenario is utter suckitude for the DM. Weeks/months of planning wasted. The second is utter suckitude for the players. Weeks if not months or years wasted to a single stupid spell.
That is the problem with SOD's
-S
The one effective deterrent against SoD effects is higher character level. Of course, there's always a chance to get a 1, but I don't think that chance should disappear because people are afraid to lose characters. If you're afraid to lose a character you've worked 10 years to get to 23rd level, you do have options, like retiring so he doesn't end up in scenarios where he rolls that 1, and all is wasted. Plus, if he's made it to level 23, he's likely made some saves vs. SoD effects anyway and had a very successful career.
Also, aside from ever-improving saving throws to offset the risk of SoDs, I don't think it would be a stretch to have powerful defensive magic or defensive magic items trump SoD effects to the point where the effects become survivable.
Don't most poisons do some kind of ability damage, not just out right kill the targets?