|
I like to think of this way: preparation and clever ideas/tactics should reward the player -- *not* be a "norm" or "baseline assumption" in the rules that essentially only allows you to "offset"/remove the penalties.This type of stuff is what I'm responding to. At the levels where SoD or SoS really come into play, preparation and clever ideas/tactics SHOULD be the norm. Characters aren't fighting ORCS anymore, they're fighting intelligent, powerful critters and NPCs who damned well DO use clever tactics and ideas, and prepare the hell out of their lairs/strongholds/whatever. Expecting high level games to play like low level dungeon crawls?
Eh.
If players are afraid to die, I understand that pinochle has a very low mortality rate...
Edit: And a quick comment on "math is hard". Please.
My problem with save or die's is that very often at high lvl it just turns into rocket tag (either your save or die kills the bad guy or the badguys save or die kills you) and if I wanted to play rocket tag I would play Halo.
I don't have a problem with save or die spells, nor with 1 natural roll auto fail. Death must be present, and with the damage output of fighters, I don't think that magic is that overpowered, even if some spells need some tweak.
|
|
No, seriously, are we playing D&D or Tea Time?
OMG! I might DIE!!! Unfair!!!
As I wrote above, there's a big difference between dying because you made a bad decision and becoming "eliminated" (Charmed/Dominated/Petrified/Paralyzed/Stunned) or dead only because you lost the iniative. Also, I'm not against characters occasionally dying, but most 'save-or-die'-effects are simply *brutal* -- especially as many DMs use them pretty extensively at higher levels. And, the PCs who often have the best protections and saving throws against such effects are the spellcasters... yet it's the "frontline" that gets hit with them. Even if your best saving throw is Fort, you probably need to roll 10+ to survive (it could easily be Fort +16 vs. DC 30+).
I don't know about you, but as a player I'm pretty fed up with situations in which my PC is killed due to failing a *single* roll (surprisingly often it's Initiative), and being told that my guy will be out for the rest of the *session*. If I've spent money (on a bus ticket and food, for example) it *DOES* feel unfair -- I've come to *play*, not to "match my wits" or luck against the DM. There *are* items that help with most of the effects, but it's a big investment for every PC to acquire them, and not all DMs let you buy them (i.e. no "magic shops" in their campaigns).
As a DM I've observed that "unfair" PC deaths (especially in 3.5 when the duration of "buffs" was dramatically shortened) often result in the other players getting frustrated, too -- sometimes even angry. I'm *not* against occasional PC deaths -- I'm against "BAM! You rolled badly, now you're DEAD!"-type of effects that are far too common in high-level play.
|
|
My problem with save or die's is that very often at high lvl it just turns into rocket tag (either your save or die kills the bad guy or the badguys save or die kills you) and if I wanted to play rocket tag I would play Halo.I like to think of this way: preparation and clever ideas/tactics should reward the player -- *not* be a "norm" or "baseline assumption" in the rules that essentially only allows you to "offset"/remove the penalties.This type of stuff is what I'm responding to. At the levels where SoD or SoS really come into play, preparation and clever ideas/tactics SHOULD be the norm. Characters aren't fighting ORCS anymore, they're fighting intelligent, powerful critters and NPCs who damned well DO use clever tactics and ideas, and prepare the hell out of their lairs/strongholds/whatever. Expecting high level games to play like low level dungeon crawls?
Eh.
If players are afraid to die, I understand that pinochle has a very low mortality rate...
Edit: And a quick comment on "math is hard". Please.
*Exactly*! And often the encounter is *built* on that premise -- i.e. the BBEG has optimized Initiative and DCs so that he can potentially kill at least one PC.
|
|
Let's take a high-level "challenge" as an example here:
Let's say we're using an 18th level wizard as a high-level BBEG against the PCs. He can easily get +6 Inherent Bonus on DEX, and has Improved Initiative, and if I'm using FR, I'd also give him 'Blooded'-feat (+2 to Init) and 'Kaupaer's Skittish Nerves' (1st level spell that gives you +5 to Init). Assuming DEX 18 with point buy (CHA and WIS 7, for all we care), he gets +11 to +18 Initiative Modifier (the former in Beta). Now, he always has 'Foresight' on, and before combat he's cast 'Forbiddance' or 'Anipathy' to prevent any melee guys reaching him (just in case) and there's a Meteor Swarm Trap (CR 19) that will hit the PCs the minute they step in. On the first round he casts 'Time Stop', and then it's over... take your pick: 'Mage's Disjunction', 'Weird', 'Wail of the Banshee', 'Horrid Wilting', 'Mass Hold Monster', more 'Meteor Swarms'...
On the other hand, if the PCs win the Initiative, it might be the other way around, *if* the party spellcasters survive the trap (remember, the BBEG has scried the PCs and has 'Foresight' on). *And*, assuming they manage to Dispel the 'Forbiddance'/'Antipathy'-spell, *or* the melee types actually manage to push through it.
Where's the "challenge"? No teleporting into the lair, and no "surprise rounds" -- 'Antimagic Field' might help a bit (assuming it survives 'Mage's Disjunction' from the BBEG) but throw in a couple of, say, Stone Golems, as "cannon fodder" into the mix, and the party stands only a little chance to win by my estimation. So, again: Where's the challenge? Either it is a pretty quick and brutal slaughter, or a challenge that only few parties manage to overcome, and only with luck and optimal spell use.
Maybe the encounter challenge is not adequate....
Let's take a high-level "challenge" as an example here:
Let's say we're using an 18th level wizard as a high-level BBEG against the PCs. He can easily get +6 Inherent Bonus on DEX, and has Improved Initiative, and if I'm using FR, I'd also give him 'Blooded'-feat (+2 to Init) and 'Kaupaer's Skittish Nerves' (1st level spell that gives you +5 to Init). Assuming DEX 18 with point buy (CHA and WIS 7, for all we care), he gets +11 to +18 Initiative Modifier (the former in Beta). Now, he always has 'Foresight' on, and before combat he's cast 'Forbiddance' or 'Anipathy' to prevent any melee guys reaching him (just in case) and there's a Meteor Swarm Trap (CR 19) that will hit the PCs the minute they step in. On the first round he casts 'Time Stop', and then it's over... take your pick: 'Mage's Disjunction', 'Weird', 'Wail of the Banshee', 'Horrid Wilting', 'Mass Hold Monster', more 'Meteor Swarms'...
On the other hand, if the PCs win the Initiative, it might be the other way around, *if* the party spellcasters survive the trap (remember, the BBEG has scried the PCs and has 'Foresight' on). *And*, assuming they manage to Dispel the 'Forbiddance'/'Antipathy'-spell, *or* the melee types actually manage to push through it.
Where's the "challenge"? No teleporting into the lair, and no "surprise rounds" -- 'Antimagic Field' might help a bit (assuming it survives 'Mage's Disjunction' from the BBEG) but throw in a couple of, say, Stone Golems, as "cannon fodder" into the mix, and the party stands only a little chance to win by my estimation. So, again: Where's the challenge? Either it is a pretty quick and brutal slaughter, or a challenge that only few parties manage to overcome, and only with luck and optimal spell use.
So what would you revise in order to 'fix' this encounter? What sort of level PC's are you talking about?
Back on topic, what I'm thinking of playetesting is this:
Save-or-die spells do Con damage based on spell level (Fort save for half):
5th level: 3d6 to one target (e.g., slay living)
6th level: 3d6 to multiple targets (e.g., circle of death)
7th level: 4d6 to one target (e.g., finger of death)
8th level: 4d6 to multiple targets
9th level: 5d6 to one target.
Flesh to stone does 4d6 Dex damage (save for half), turned to stone if reduced to 0.
Feeblemind does 3d6 Int drain (save for half).
Beware of empower spell if you use this ! ^^
Beware of empower spell if you use this ! ^^
Great catch, Selios! Thanks. 4d6 empowered would be close to 6d6, which is > than 5d6, so Empower Spell breaks the progression for a 2-level bump. So I need to add in a non-variable (caster-level-based) addition, and lower the variable part -- but I can't use full caster level, because I don't want a 5th level spell doing, say, 1d6+15 Con damage. Hmmm. Maybe:
5th level: 2d6 + 1/2 caster level (max +7)
7th level: 2d6 + 1/2 caster level (max +10)
9th level: 3d6 + 1/2 caster level
Then a CL 13th Empowered slay living does (2d6 * 1.5) + 6 = mean 16.5, as compared to a CL 13th finger of death that does a straight 2d6+6 but is a ranged attack...
Empower costs a feat and doesn't raise DCs, so it's okay if it ends up a little bit more powerful than an ordinary spell of the increased level.
|
|
So what would you revise in order to 'fix' this encounter? What sort of level PC's are you talking about?
Well, first of all, mid-level and high-level save progression should be revised (i.e. bigger bonuses to every save), because it's easier to pump up the DCs than your saves. For example, my 18th level fighter (3E) has Fort +16 (Base Save +11, Con 18, Permanent 'Resistance'-spell cast on him), and generally he has to save against DC 30+ (which requires me to roll 14+ even with Fort saves!). If I'm spending a Feat to boost my Will save, I'd expect it to *SCALE* with levels (e.g. +1 per three levels) -- not be a static bonus that feels like a complete waste after level 13+.
Secondly, all 'save-or-die'-effects would give you two or three saves and each time you fail, your condition becomes worse (i.e. -2 to rolls per failed save, third failed save kills/paralyzes/petrifies you). Or, you might get "slapped" with an automatic condition (such as 'Stunned') with the 4E "save ends"-type of mechanic (i.e. new save every round to end the effect). Note that this type of "fix" wouldn't probably require any major "tampering" with the saves, because you're not dependant on a single roll anymore.
Thirdly, certain spells (for example, 'Time Stop' and most Enchantment spells) need tweaking badly, but that's probably not an issue to be discussed here.
(And the level of the PCs in the example above could be from 18th to 20th level, and it wouldn't affect the outcome much.)
|
Crazy idea time - instead of a save or die/death effect spell doing CON drain or damage, how about it inflicts a CON penalty? The penalty would effect Fort saves and CON based skills (if any), without causing a hp recalculation. If the penalty exceeds the CON score, then the character dies. The penalty can go away after a certain time period, say 10 minutes. Until it disappears, spells that inflict the same penalty can stack effect.
I drew inspiration for this from everyone's favorite spell, Ray of Enfeeblement, which works similarly, but doesn't allow STR to fall below 0.
Thanks for reading.
The hp recalculation is pretty easy: subtract total character level times change in Con modifier. What is the Con penalty if it does not include loss of hit points? Loss of Fort save bonus doesn't seem like enough for a death effect, since that can only kill you indirectly if something else requires a Fort save.
Con damage can kill you two ways: 0 Con or negative hp. I think that's reasonable for a "death" spell that used to be save-or-die.
Actually, finger of death in the Pathfinder Beta might as well still be save-or-die for many targets of the spell, since it does 10 damage per caster level on a failed save. Since a wizard needs to be 13th level to cast a 7th level spell, the damage is at least 130 hp. Personally, I'd like it to be a little more possible to survive the spell even on a failed save, especially for characters who are not hp tanks. Con damage is still deadly, but more survivable by a character of a class with a lower hit die (d8 or d6).
I think 3d6 + caster level Con drain proposed by the OP is too high. A normal person has 10 or 11 Con, so I think 2d6 gives a good chance to kill a normal person. I'd use 2d6 + 1/2 caster level Con damage, or 1d6 Con damage on a successful save. I think a penalty that lasts only 10 minutes is too weak, so I'd let it heal at the normal rate: 1 point per day. Talismans that reduce Con damage by 1d6 would make...
Well, I did say it was a crazy idea...
I threw the no hp change idea in because of an observation earlier in thread about this being disruptive to game flow. Personally, I don't find it to be disruptive.
As this thread has continued, I'm becoming more wary of using CON damage or drain for these spells. A 1d6 to 3d6 (with or without some level based bonus) may not seem reasonable for the spell level at first, but could be very subject to abuse when metamagic feats are applied.
What if a 3d6 CON damage effect is empowered and maximized? We looking at 27 points of CON damage on a failed save! Some monsters can survive this, but many can't. Most PC's will be unlikely to survive this. A maximized, empowered spell would seem unlikely with the base feats, but what about a universal wizard with Metamagic Mastery (assuming this stays)? What about the Sudden version of metamagic feats from the Complete Arcane?
I need to think on this more.
As this thread has continued, I'm becoming more wary of using CON damage or drain for these spells. A 1d6 to 3d6 (with or without some level based bonus) may not seem reasonable for the spell level at first, but could be very subject to abuse when metamagic feats are applied.
What if a 3d6 CON damage effect is empowered and maximized? We looking at 27 points of CON damage on a failed save! Some monsters can survive this, but many can't. Most PC's will be unlikely to survive this. A maximized, empowered spell would seem unlikely with the base feats, but what about a universal wizard with Metamagic Mastery (assuming this stays)? What about the Sudden version of metamagic feats from the Complete Arcane?
I'm sure someone else will beat me to saying it, but Empower and Maximize stack, but do not modifier eachother. So an Empowered Maximized 3d6 = 18 + (3d6 X .5), or about 23.5 average. Your point though is substantial.
The original thread that had the ideas about con damage suggested damage dice scaling by spell level. Honestly I'd start it at 1d6 or 2d4 + 1/2 caster level at 5th, and scale it up one die each spell level, but minus 1-2 dice for multi-target (Wail of the Banshee, etc.) But I'm rather hesitant about using save-or-die effects (but don't remove them!).
A solution to your concern would be to set a fixed amount of con damage, like 10 + 1/2 caster level, or 5 + 1/2 CL for 5th, +2 per spell level above 5th.
I personally am a big fan of having save or die effects in the game. (The change to magic is the main reason I am going to PFRPG) While I understand that for some people it is a dealbreaker for them. What I would like to see is a chart just like the slow/normal/fast XP chart. You can have three columns of lethality and options at each row.
I really like this idea--it provides valid mechanics to suit your (DM's) preferred lethality.
As a side note, I don't particularly care for CON damage/drain as a replacement for SoD for the same reason I don't care for damage--ability score damage (CON, INT, STR, etc) spells and effects have their place already. Duplicating them in SoDs doesn't really solve the 'effect role' issue.
As a further side note, for the truly paranoid-yet-unprepared, counterspells work miracles for many encounters.
But, again, Thazar's idea rocks--it's a win-win for everyone on the most controversial issue in the magic playtest. Barring that, I'll set my trained attack monkey on anyone who doesn't like SoD effects. That'll solve the problem quickly!
Well, first of all, mid-level and high-level save progression should be revised (i.e. bigger bonuses to every save), because it's easier to pump up the DCs than your saves. For example, my 18th level fighter (3E) has Fort +16 (Base Save +11, Con 18, Permanent 'Resistance'-spell cast on him), and generally he has to save against DC 30+ (which requires me to roll 14+ even with Fort saves!). If I'm spending a Feat to boost my Will save, I'd expect it to *SCALE* with levels (e.g. +1 per three levels) -- not be a static bonus that feels like a complete waste after level 13+.
+2 to will saves, is like having 6 more levels, it's not bad.
The problem is perhaps not with saves, but more for the increased DCs at high levels.
Secondly, all 'save-or-die'-effects would give you two or three saves and each time you fail, your condition becomes worse (i.e. -2 to rolls per failed save, third failed save kills/paralyzes/petrifies you). Or, you might get "slapped" with an automatic condition (such as 'Stunned') with the 4E "save ends"-type of mechanic (i.e. new save every round to end the effect). Note that this type of "fix" wouldn't probably require any major "tampering" with the saves, because you're not dependant on a single roll anymore.
If it takes three or more rounds to kill with a "save or die" spell, the wizard will be killed by the fighter. Given the damage output of a fighter, no spellcaster will last very long in front of him.
Let's consider the current mechanic of the save throws for both SoD and SoS spells in relation to the fighter for a moment.
Well even with poor saves you end up with a + 6 on your will save. The DC's for the spells only go up to 19 before stat modifiers.
So just looking at the "bare" mechanics you only need a 13 to save versus a 9th level spell. Now the minimum DC due to stat modifiers for a 9th level spell actually comes out to a 23... which a fighter with a wisdom of 10 can do at twentith level on a roll of 17 or better.
Considering that Will saves are the fighters WEAK point that seems fair to me... A 20% chance of not succumbing.
Throwing in everything else that can be stacked actually just keeps things even.
The absolute best a wizard can hope for out of his DC for a 9th level spell would be as follows:
Starting Int 20
+ 5 from levels
+5 from books
+ 6 from stat boosters
Gives a total Int of 36. Which is a modifier of +13.
Base DC 10
Stat Mod + 13
Feats + 2
Spell level + 9
Highest DC possible by Core = 34
Now lets see what the fighter can do with a starting Wisdom of 10 at twentieth level...
Base Save Bonus + 6
Wisdom Booster (+4) + 2
Iron Will + 2
Cloak of Resistance + 5 (resistance)
Luckstone + 1 (luck)
Pale Green Ioun Stone + 1 (competence)
Gives a total save modifier of + 17...
Which means he still needs a 17 or better to save versus the wizard's 9th level spell.
However this is still before anyone applies any buffs to the fighter which can still raise his save throws higher... or a simple level one spell "Protection from evil" will completely block mind affecting spells...
Also lets consider "Death" spells with the same fighter as above...
The DC of the spell doesn't change: DC 34
The fighter's save bonuses however do.
Base Save Bonus + 12
Constitution Modifier (starting 16) +3
Stat Booster ( +4) +2
Cloak of Resistance + 5
Luckstone + 1
Ioun Stone + 1
Total Save Modifier + 24
The fighter only needs a 10 to save versus the death spell before Great Fortitude. If the fighter grabbed Great Fortitude he only needs an 8.
These are the best spell DC's the wizard can get in core pathfinder Beta. There isn't anything left to raise the DC for the wizard. However there are still buffs and options for rendering the fighter immune.
And at the same time this is just the "poor" fighter. We aren't talking about the monk (best saves) the paladin (more immunities and great saves) the cleric (good saves, spells for immunities) or any other class that will "outshine" the fighter.
Most monsters have good will and fortitude saves if they are even vulnerable to these spells in the first place. Add in the fact that these same monsters have more hit dice than the typical fighter or wizard their save modifiers are going to be even higher.
This is the best the wizard can do on save DC's. It's all down hill from here, and the wizard can only do this 6 times a day.
Final Note: The items above total up to 81k gold. At level twenty you have 880k gold. That's enough for +10 magic armor, a +10 magic shield, 2 +10 magic weapons the stuff I mentioned above AND 399k gold pieces of other stuff.
|
Yes it's a game for enjoyment, but it seems just as insane to me to say "death" spell shouldn't kill someone as it is to say that a fighter lives through re-entry through an atmosphere just becuase he didn't take enough damage to kill him or from some other such activity.
Best explanation ever.
Insipidious, Grand Arch-Necromancer of Terror: "I have invented a new spell. It is available only to the most powerful of our order. I call it "finger of death".
Noub the Archivist: Is it a death spell master?
Insipidious: Of course.
Noub: Range and target?
Insipidious: Close; one creature. I like to see the look of terror.
Noub: Duration?
Insipidious: INSTANT! MWAHAHA!
Noub: Effect?
Insipidious: I would say equivalent to getting hit by a dozen greatswords.
Noub: But...
Insipidious: I know, it's perfect.
Noub: But...
Insipidious: Now I don't have to hire 12 warriors to follow me around.
Noub: I'll file it under "Finger of Damage"
Insipidious: Quiet! FINGER OF DEATH!
Noub: I'm not quite dead.
|
I'm *not* against occasional PC deaths -- I'm against "BAM! You rolled badly, now you're DEAD!"-type of effects that are far too common in high-level play.
I see your point, and I agree it can make for a dull afternoon and wasted bus fare, but it's often *planned* badly rather than *rolled* badly on the part of the players.
I've lost count of the number of parties I've seen walk straight into an evil wizards lair and straight up to him. This is a guy who can slay people with a word, someone who has terrorized an entire country. That does make for a dull encounter, even if the party wins.
On the other hand, the encounters where people have done anything to stop the guy from getting spells off have been great fun. I've had a character grappling a vampiric wizard and getting bitten just so that he could prevent spells from being cast.
As an aside, when someone dies during my games they get a share of the monsters and bad guys to run. It gives them something fun to do and I've even had a player whose character had been slain by its nemesis start running the nemesis and spend a round kicking and taunting the corpse of his former character - it made for a memorable finale.
I'm one of those who hates Save or Die and Save or Suck spells. ("Oh no! She must be a wimp! Beat her and mock her for not preferring to play like I do, because my one way to game is supreme!")
I hate them as a player, because when I fire them at someone else, the enemy makes their saving throw, and I just wasted a high level spell slot. I hate them as a player because when they're fired at me, I just lost the fight because I flopped a 1. Not because my tactics weren't sound, or I was being heroic and trying to fight the bad guy while horribly wounded, or taking a risk and doing a creative maneuver--but because I flopped a 1.
I hate them as a GM because either they won't work, and I haven't threatened/challenged my players at all, or they do work and I feel like I cheated because rather than cunningly tricked the PCs into an ambush and they failed to get their team tactics together, or saw them fight to the teeth versus a truly worthy opponent, I just got lucky and pointed my finger, and now I have to come up with a way for them to get their party member back or they have to spend some time resurrecting, which just derails the story for everybody. Bleh.
When it isn't frustrating, it's just boring. Death by single die roll. Yawn.
Yes, there need to be high-level spells that are truly frightening, that can truly deal some kind of damage or create an effect that actually *scares* the player (not just makes him pissed off because he flops a 1).
I like the idea of ability damage because 1) it still COULD kill the average guy (and is therefore useful to my players because they can drop mooks to their hearts' content) 2) It may NOT kill the PC instantly but is going to be something that affects them mechanically and likely in an "Oh s@#! way." (At least that's how my players react). I find a lot of the time my players actually get more scared--and thus more excited, and more challenged--when they are *almost* dead. Gets your heart pumping, it does. Same with SOS spells... I actually like the idea of the slow ability drain for something like Petrification (rather than instastone, where BAM! it's done, slowly, horrifically watching your flesh gray and harden before your eyes, and you still don't know if you'll get the cure for it in time? Awesome. Sorta like Nethack, where you realize that egg you just ate was a cockatrice egg, and you're trying to calculate if you have just enough time to get eat your emergency lizard...)
The other option we've worked with is having SOD spells is having them do negative hit points equal to the level of the spell. So a 9th level death spell is going to drop you instantly to -9. This doesn't give you the suck of instant death, but gives the player that "Oh crap" sensation in his gut, because if he's lucky, he might live, but someone might come to brutally finish him off. This also allows him to be saved by players who work well together ("Let's get the cleric over there pronto!")--and thus the victory or failure is not solely reliant on dice, but also on player tactics, which to me is more important. At the same time, the spell that was cast still gets to be impressive and do some serious damage, so we know it's not useless.
I will say that in these options where SOS/SOD instead does ability or hit point damage, they should generally be "save for half" or the like, so that they will always be somewhat effective (as opposed to "no result" or "well, that was going out with a whimper", two choices I'm not fond of).
Huh, I've just read this over and realized my key argument is that I prefer finding alternatives to SOS/SODs because it allows you to torture your players more. Hm. Lathiira, you reading this? I'm just kidding! Really! *straightens halo* :)
|
|
I just wanted to say I pretty much agree with everything DeathQuaker said above.
Yep, indeed some good points by DeathQuaker and well written.
-ve spell level hit points is a good one that I've not used in the past. That would work well.
As I mentioned a page or so back, my idea solution would be for the spell description to have a named 'effect' and a visual description and for the 'effects' to be listed in a table at the back with a number of columns. So for a 'disintegration' effect we might have 4 columns that say:
* 2xCL d6 damage
* 2d6 CON damage
* Target is on -6 hp
* Target is destroyed
And the DM and players pick a column at the start of the campaign.
I just (personally) think that a high level caster needs the ability to snuff out the life of a person with the point of a finger purely for flavour.
|
|
I completely understand the "one roll that decides my character's fate sucks" mindset, and I've had it happen to my characters enough that I can relate to the sense of frustration when you bomb on the Save. That really sucks, I know.
But it really sucks when the monsters roll a 20 and confirm, too. (Whether or not you're using the Crit deck. And my group doesn't bother with confirms, a 20's a crit, EOS.)
And it really sucks when you're rolling an attack and watch a 1 come up. (Whether or not you're using the Crit deck.)
In either case, the battle could be won or lost on that roll of the dice, too.
My old GM used to say that a character would only die if two things happened. 1) He/She did something stupid, and 2) He/She rolled bad. It sounds simple, but it's fairly good advice, and I tend to play more like that, anyway. If the characters ignore the hallway full of statues with horrorstruck expressions on their faces, or discount the stories of the locals who won't go near the ruined keep because of the "unearthly wailing sounds" that come at night, I don't feel like I should have to pull my punches when they botch their roll.
Maybe some sort of caveat be placed beside the chart (above, which I think should be adopted to appease everyone regardless of game style) that suggests if you play a more 'lethal' game, you might want to likewise consider increasing the ableness for characters to recover from lethalities by making recovery magic/potions/the like a bit more abundant. I dunno.
What I do know is that personally, like I said, I don't care for the flavor of straight HP or ability score damage for save or effect spells, and I'm not even really big on the tiered system, especially for spells like Sleep, which used to be a first-level staple. I like the bigger than life danger of the instant incapacitation, not having every creature and spell become a variation of ability drain and HP damage.
If the characters ignore the hallway full of statues with horrorstruck expressions on their faces, I don't feel like I should have to pull my punches when they botch their roll.
That's a great example, because it highlights the difference between a "good" save-or-die effect and a "bad" one. A good one provides some opportunity for careful or clever players to glean an inkling of what they'll be up against, and to contrive some means of defense. For example, in a recent adventure the bard tried scrying on the bad guy, only to hastily cancel his spell when he found the bad guy peering back at him... without announcing "he has detect scrying active," it gave me the opportunity to clue them in that their adversary was a spellcaster of at least 7th level. I can now reasonably expect them to take steps like protecting the fighter from domination with a protection from evil spell.
On the other hand, imagine this scenario: players walk into an abandoned mine, chasing a low-level mook. The invisible bad guy with Improved Initiative, stat-boost items, and greater spell focus hits 'em with a mass hold person and they all fail their saves, even the wizards and clerics, due to lousy rolls. Bad guy cuts their throats. End of party.
In the second case, a bit of foreshadowing would probably have mitigated a lot of the problem. Like after a TPK in Spire of Long Shadows, I allowed the replacement party to cast speak with dead on the corpses of their predecessors to learn more about what they were up against...
|
|
So what I'm seeing, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it isn't the fact that save-or-such spells exist, or what it allows a character or NPC to do, but the fact that the outcome is determined randomly using a d20.
So what seems more appropriate to me as a fix is to introduce measures to decrease the chance of PC failure (especially at high levels) such as action points or re-rolls.
|
So what I'm seeing, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it isn't the fact that save-or-such spells exist, or what it allows a character or NPC to do, but the fact that the outcome is determined randomly using a d20.
So what seems more appropriate to me as a fix is to introduce measures to decrease the chance of PC failure (especially at high levels) such as action points or re-rolls.
I could live with that.
But there are already measures players can take to avoid the fate of the die:
1. They can choose feats that grant bonuses.
2. They can buy equipment that grants bonuses.
3. The new Improved Iron Will et al feats grant a reroll.
4. They can get buffs that completely negate the effect (death ward).
5. They can boost the appropriate stat for a bonus on the save throw.
If they don't take these measures they are saying they aren't worried about this happening to them.
Now someone will bring up the "I don't want to be forced to optimize" arguement.
To them I say you don't have to... just like a soldier can say, "I don't want modern body armor and a gun, I'm going to use this chain mail and a sword!"
He'll just pay the consenquences for his choices.
You know, I'd like to see a list of these "necessary supplies" and "spells-that-MUST-be-memorized-for-every-session", because, frankly, there's just so many situations and encounters the PCs simply *cannot* prepare for -- unless, of course, all spellcasters will have more slots, or all spellcasters will be nerfed to be able to cast their repertoire spontaneously (e.g. via Spell Points). Or, if the DM hints clearly at what they're going to face.
As I pointed out in another thread, just because a status effect caused by a spell can be removed or negated by another spell doesn't mean that the presence of the counterspell is enough to balance the effect. Examples:
Death Ward protects you from taking negative energy damage. Does that mean that this spell is the only balancing mechanic we should consider for negative energy damage and that it would be acceptable for the rules to say that characters to drop dead as soon as they take negative energy damage? I don't think so.
Feather Fall protects you from taking damage from a fall. Does that mean that you should instantly die if you fall into a pit trap? Nope.
Wind Wall prevents characters from taking damage from arrows. Do the presence of these spells in the game mean that it is acceptable for characters to run around with arrows that do 5D10 damage? Certainly not!
These are all sources of damage that have spell counters, but they also have some mechanics in place to balance them in the absence of these hard counters. That's why we have Negative Levels, you take 1D6 damage per 10 feet of distance that you fall (maximum 10D6), and arrows don't do 5D10 worth of damage.
And in regards to character optimization: you can do a lot to try and optimize your character to avoid effects that prey on your Will save, but you really need throw a lot of magical items at the problem before it goes away. If you're playing in a Medium or Low Magic game world, you may not have the opportunity to do this. And I believe that one of the PRPG design goals is to encourage players to use magical items that have gone virtually untouched since 3.0 came out. Having Save-Or-Die spells in the game does nothing to advance that design goal, as all of the Fighters will end up stocking up on Cloaks of Resistance and Periapts of Wisdom instead of trying out a Cloak of the Mountebank or an Amulet of Detect Thoughts.
Finally - having Finger of Death do CON damage isn't a very good mechanic at all. You end up with the same net effect as the original spell, but with slightly more calculations. The current version is supposed to be a deadly spell - certainly enough to kill many people instantly - but not so deadly that a monster with massive amount of HP can be murdered with a lucky shot from a single spell.
This is actually a change that is supposed to make things TOUGHER for players, as they can't just cast a single spell to whack the Boss Monster at the end of the game. Player characters are likely to have Death Ward - monsters with large numbers of HP aren't so likely to have access to that ability. It's still going to put some hurt on the Boss Monster, don't get me wrong, but it won't completely kill them outright.
But there are already measures players can take to avoid the fate of the die
See my post above regarding foreshadowing, and Asgetrion's. A DM or adventure designer can always come up with something else that they have no way to anticipate, and therefore no way to guard against, and that kills them all. Without any foreshadowing to get them thinking about countermeasures, there's nothing they can do.
Unfortunately, we can't add a hard mechanical rule to force DMs to do that, so we're left with stop-gap measures in case the DM forgets/refuses/doesn't think of it/whatever. Action points represent a nice safety valve, especially if we add a simple caveat to the action point rules, along the lines of "action points cannot be used in situations in which the PC was aware of the effect in question and took no steps to prevent it."
Players that always rely on sheer luck should often end up with dead characters. Players who are canny and careful shouldn't be losing characters to bad die rolls more often than the luck-oriented people lose them to poor planning.
|
|
Action points represent a nice safety valve, especially if we add a simple caveat to the action point rules, along the lines of "action points cannot be used in situations in which the PC was aware of the effect in question and took no steps to prevent it."
An action dice mechanic in core Pathfinder would make me very happy.
Players that are canny and careful will plan accordingly too. They may not be ready for everything but if they are going against a necromancer they should *know* to have deathwards up, and magic circle of protection from evil wouldn't be a bad idea either.
I agree you can't prepare for everything, but in my mind that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be able to take you out. If we where playing a "heroes" game alright maybe the players should have some sort of safety button, but we aren't, D&D is just as much about facing an overwhelming enemy and losing as it is facing an overwhelming enemy and winning. Part of the "safety valve" in D&D is the party mechanic, you go in with your friends so they can help you survive. If you go in solo you will lose. With a cleric or wizard at your back you got a much better chance, just like casters have a better chance with a fighter at their front.
Players that are canny and careful will plan accordingly too. They may not be ready for everything but if they are going against a necromancer they should *know* to have deathwards up, and magic circle of protection from evil wouldn't be a bad idea either.
we add a simple caveat to the action point rules, along the lines of "action points cannot be used in situations in which the PC was aware of the effect in question and took no steps to prevent it."
You and I obviously agree that planning should be required, in situations where it is possible, and that no additional "safety valves" are needed in those situations. We seem to strongly disagree regarding situations in which no foreshadowing is given, and in which no preparation is possible:
I agree you can't prepare for everything, but in my mind that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be able to take you out.
So, prewritten adventure/DM throws something totally unexpected at party. No way to prepare, and everyone dies. How often this happens is totally up to the DM: player planning has no impact (no foreshadowing by DM); dice have minimal impact (high save DCs vs. unprepared situations)... in other words, everything comes down to DM whim. That might be a preference for some, but I'd prefer to have an alternative, because (personally speaking only) that seems more like "story hour" and less like interactive gaming.
How did everyone die? Ok first round still unprepare someone could drop. However the entire party is TPK becuase they had something unexpected come up at the high level adventure? That's hard to believe for me. That none of the PC's could do anything to handle the unexpected? And that once the unexpected showed up they fall over dead becuase they couldn't react in time? What did they spend their rounds doing? Crying becuase they weren't prepared? Almost all of the "Death" and SOS spells affect one target at a time max.
In fact the only ninth level spells that could possibly kill more than one character a round are Wail of the Banshee, and possibly Mass Hold Monster.
Wail of the Banshee even on a save throw only does 10 points of damage per caster level, and gives both a save throw and spell resistance, and if the save throw is made then no damage is done at all.
Mass Hold Monster is a will save and 2/3 of the character classes have good will saves, and already gives another save each round!
And then you are telling me that none of the party could possibly make those save throws, or survive the damage?
Or am I missing some spell? Cause the way I see it even unprepared a high level party should be able to handle this sort of thing without a TPK.
Of course if you mean by "unprepared" that the party has no spells ready, no equipment, and are exhausted then yes it should be a TPK... but what did those players do to deserve that?
I presented a solution here, which could solve the issue entirely.
-Matt
|
|
That might be a preference for some, but I'd prefer to have an alternative, because (personally speaking only) that seems more like "story hour" and less like interactive gaming.
Funny, I always felt when no one could die and the GM fudged everything for the sake of his (generally cheesy and goofy) "epic story" it felt more like "story hour" than a game.
Eh, different strokes and all...
Funny, I always felt when no one could die and the GM fudged everything for the sake of his (generally cheesy and goofy) "epic story" it felt more like "story hour" than a game. Eh, different strokes and all...
I'd hope there could be a middle ground between "always live" and "always die." Like, just maybe, the characters probably (not 100%, but maybe more than 50%) live if they plan ahead, and take active steps to protect themselves; and maybe they usually (not always, but 50%+) die if the wander into things unprepared. You know, like a range in which they have some control over their own fate. The DM doesn't coddle them, but the system isn't skewed too drastically in favor of knocking them all off.
And that once the unexpected showed up they fall over dead becuase they couldn't react in time? What did they spend their rounds doing? Almost all of the "Death" and SOS spells affect one target at a time max.
If you only present them with "out of the box" challenges (traps and spells that specifically appear in the SRD), and if the rules clearly state that no DM is ever permitted to use anything outside of those options, then your assessment is correct. But if you want to occasionally run a prewritten adventure, or use some non-core spell or trap... I don't know how many times I've seen stuff with 1-round TPK written all over it in high-level prewritten adventures, stuff that's off the wall, not out of the SRD, and couldn't be adequately anticipated without some intentional foreshadowing on the DM's part.
Shoot, you, personally, as DM could hit 'em with an instantaneous poison mist with a DC of 50 that does 10d10 Con damage, if you felt like it. Or a tripwire with VERY dicy Search DC that instantaneously drops a thousand tons of rocks on their heads ("everyone takes 1,000d6 damage and save vs. massive damage at DC 100!"). Those would be outrageous, rotten things to do with no foreshadowing, but they're not too far off from some of the stuff that appears in "classic" modules (you ever play through the Tomb of Horrors in 1e?)
|
|
Funny, I always felt when no one could die and the GM fudged everything for the sake of his (generally cheesy and goofy) "epic story" it felt more like "story hour" than a game. Eh, different strokes and all...I'd hope there could be a middle ground between "always live" and "always die." Like, just maybe, the characters probably (not 100%, but maybe more than 50%) live if they plan ahead, and take active steps to protect themselves; and maybe they usually (not always, but 50%+) die if the wander into things unprepared. You know, like a range in which they have some control over their own fate. The DM doesn't coddle them, but the system isn't skewed too drastically in favor of knocking them all off.
Well, the only reason we died Sunday (You, China and I) was a lack of planning and a split party. Wasn't the adventure's fault (thought the fight with the mimics and the hell cat were tough, it wasn't a big deal unless you were shorthanded, like we were 'cause the party split).
I still think a LOT of the problems people have come from one of two sources:
a) they WANT story hour.
b) piss poor DMing.
I say this because, you know, if SoD and SoS were SO UNFUN, we wouldn't be playing D&D anymore. The game would have died in 1980. Apparently, people didn't know they were having their fun diminished, and the 80's were the heyday of D&D. Now, everyone thinks everything is "unfair", they are concerned with "balance", and want to drive their bad screenpla...errr, story rather than play a game...
|
|
...(you ever play through the Tomb of Horrors in 1e?)
Or C1(room fills with sand trap), C2 (old 'medusa in a robe gardening' trick, a take on the 'medusa reveal' from B1), or...well, lots of modules back then. But we liked it!
Then Hickman came along. Eh. The DL series screwed everything up. One player HAD to die (poor Sturm Brightblade) to advance the story, but everyone else COULDN'T die. Ruined a whole three generations of gaming (and gamers), that series did...
|
|
Funny, I always felt when no one could die and the GM fudged everything for the sake of his (generally cheesy and goofy) "epic story" it felt more like "story hour" than a game. Eh, different strokes and all...I'd hope there could be a middle ground between "always live" and "always die." Like, just maybe, the characters probably (not 100%, but maybe more than 50%) live if they plan ahead, and take active steps to protect themselves; and maybe they usually (not always, but 50%+) die if the wander into things unprepared. You know, like a range in which they have some control over their own fate. The DM doesn't coddle them, but the system isn't skewed too drastically in favor of knocking them all off.Well, the only reason we died Sunday (You, China and I) was a lack of planning and a split party. Wasn't the adventure's fault (thought the fight with the mimics and the hell cat were tough, it wasn't a big deal unless you were shorthanded, like we were 'cause the party split).
I still think a LOT of the problems people have come from one of two sources:
a) they WANT story hour.
b) piss poor DMing.I say this because, you know, if SoD and SoS were SO UNFUN, we wouldn't be playing D&D anymore. The game would have died in 1980. Apparently, people didn't know they were having their fun diminished, and the 80's were the heyday of D&D. Now, everyone thinks everything is "unfair", they are concerned with "balance", and want to drive their bad screenpla...errr, story rather than play a game...
First of all, I may be wrong, but you *really* seem to dislike campaign story arcs and adventure plots. It's not always "story hour" or "poor man's . I've played under DMs who wrote and ran *GREAT* campaigns that I still think of fondly, and yet I've also played under "experienced" DMs who opened the MM at the beginning of the session, and went: "So, you guys met, uh, in a tavern or something, and now you've reached a dungeon. The first room has... wait a minute... orcs? No... yeah, an Otyugh might be cool... ROLL FOR INIATIATIVE!" (sadly, this a true story -- no pre-play prep or anything, because the DM claimed he was so good he didn't need to do it). Can you guess which gaming style suits me better? Anyway, it's not black-and-white, but I wonder what you mean by "piss poor DMing" -- this sort of DMing, I guess?
Also, regarding why 'save-or-die'-effects didn't make us all abandon (A)D&D back then was that the numbers were in better balance -- a high-level fighter saved against and hit *ANYTHING* (including 'Dragonfear' and 'Disintegrate' and whatnot) if he rolled 10+. He didn't *need* a host of items to function -- as long as he had a magical weapon, he could perform in his role. Of course, it was rather bland as the real difference between two fighters was most likely their STR score (and the percentiles, if both had 18) and weapon of choice. The positive side to this was that nobody could optimize their character with endless splatbooks and new abilities and magic items and spells. Yet, although I sorely miss that same balance and heroic "feel" that was more common back then, that doesn't mean I consider 3E to be inferior to AD&D. No, I like 3E better, at least in theory -- in practise (as I'm playing or running the game), though, I'm often reminded of the "swinginess" and the terrible balance between the classes and the horribly scaling numbers that are all usually very problematic in high-level play.
|
|
You know, I'd like to see a list of these "necessary supplies" and "spells-that-MUST-be-memorized-for-every-session", because, frankly, there's just so many situations and encounters the PCs simply *cannot* prepare for -- unless, of course, all spellcasters will have more slots, or all spellcasters will be nerfed to be able to cast their repertoire spontaneously (e.g. via Spell Points). Or, if the DM hints clearly at what they're going to face.As I pointed out in another thread, just because a status effect caused by a spell can be removed or negated by another spell doesn't mean that the presence of the counterspell is enough to balance the effect. Examples:
Death Ward protects you from taking negative energy damage. Does that mean that this spell is the only balancing mechanic we should consider for negative energy damage and that it would be acceptable for the rules to say that characters to drop dead as soon as they take negative energy damage? I don't think so.
Feather Fall protects you from taking damage from a fall. Does that mean that you should instantly die if you fall into a pit trap? Nope.
Wind Wall prevents characters from taking damage from arrows. Do the presence of these spells in the game mean that it is acceptable for characters to run around with arrows that do 5D10 damage? Certainly not!
These are all sources of damage that have spell counters, but they also have some mechanics in place to balance them in the absence of these hard counters. That's why we have Negative Levels, you take 1D6 damage per 10 feet of distance that you fall (maximum 10D6), and arrows don't do 5D10 worth of damage.
And in regards to character optimization: you can do a lot to try and optimize your character to avoid effects that prey on your Will save, but you really need throw a lot of magical items at the problem before it goes away. If you're playing in a Medium or Low Magic game world, you may not have the opportunity to do this. And I believe that one of the PRPG...
I assume you replied to the wrong person, or misunderstood my sarcasm? Because I agree with what you are saying (and my post you replied to handled things in the same "tone"). ;)
|
|
First of all, I may be wrong, but you *really* seem to dislike campaign story arcs and adventure plots. It's not always "story hour" or "poor man's . I've played under DMs who wrote and ran *GREAT* campaigns that I still think of fondly, and yet I've also played under "experienced" DMs who opened the MM at the beginning of the session, and went: "So, you guys met, uh, in a tavern or something, and now you've reached a...
Sorry, post was too long to fully quote again.
No, I have no problem with "story arcs" or "adventure plots". I have a problem with players who think the entire universe revolves around them. When I run games, player characters are living one story in a multitude of stories. The world doesn't revolve around them, nor does it take notice of them until they do something worthy of note. PCs die, it happens. I don't go out of my way to kill them, but I also run a "naturalistic" world where "run away" can be the best option. MY world doesn't exist in easy to digest, level appropriate bites, it just exists. Do your homework (you know, roleplay, ask questions, stuff like that) before wandering into the mountains, you never know, there may be dragons there...
As to the second part (that was cut off), FIX THE FIGHTER, DON'T DUMB EVERYTHING ELSE DOWN TO HIS OR HER LEVEL.
This is my point. I hate nerf toys.
|
|
Players that are canny and careful will plan accordingly too. They may not be ready for everything but if they are going against a necromancer they should *know* to have deathwards up, and magic circle of protection from evil wouldn't be a bad idea either.
I agree you can't prepare for everything, but in my mind that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be able to take you out. If we where playing a "heroes" game alright maybe the players should have some sort of safety button, but we aren't, D&D is just as much about facing an overwhelming enemy and losing as it is facing an overwhelming enemy and winning. Part of the "safety valve" in D&D is the party mechanic, you go in with your friends so they can help you survive. If you go in solo you will lose. With a cleric or wizard at your back you got a much better chance, just like casters have a better chance with a fighter at their front.
Players that are canny and careful will plan accordingly too. They may not be ready for everything but if they are going against a necromancer they should *know* to have deathwards up, and magic circle of protection from evil wouldn't be a bad idea either.
I agree you can't prepare for everything, but in my mind that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be able to take you out. If we where playing a "heroes" game alright maybe the players should have some sort of safety button, but we aren't, D&D is just as much about facing an overwhelming enemy and losing as it is facing an overwhelming enemy and winning. Part of the "safety valve" in D&D is the party mechanic, you go in with your friends so they can help you survive. If you go in solo you will lose. With a cleric or wizard at your back you got a much better chance, just like casters have a better chance with a fighter at their front.
Like I've already said a couple of times before, in AD&D I *could* play HEROIC fighters who could charge actually slay dragons and archmages . To me, *THAT* was (and is) the true "Spirit of D&D".
Now I need a bunch of cloaks and rings and potions just to protect me from their aura and spells, so that I won't be almost automatically dominated or killed or paralyzed with Fear. Whoopee. Where's the same heroic spirit now? Oh, I forgot, it lies in the "buffs" of your companions -- the cleric, druid and wizard.
Also, sometimes I get most fun out of "dysfunctional" parties, in which people are really role-playing it out and PCs may actually have individual goals and even grudges toward other party members. If I wanted to optimize "party synergy" and concentrate on "outhinking" the DM on the "playing board", I'd play 4E, because it models those things far better than 3E or PF.
And yet, I think you're wrong about PCs not being able to survive on "solo" mode -- high-level wizards can do that pretty easily. In fact, from a purely tactical POV, other party members (excluding the cleric, druid and paladin) are just a burden to him. Take a look at some of the high-level wizard playtests on these boards, if you don't believe me.
|
|
As to the second part (that was cut off), FIX THE FIGHTER, DON'T DUMB EVERYTHING ELSE DOWN TO HIS OR HER LEVEL.
This is my point. I hate nerf toys.
The problem is that if the saves at high level are well beyond anyone but the cleric, wizard and the paladin to regularly succeed, it takes more than just "fixing the fighter". In my opinion the easiest way would be to "bump up" all saves for all the classes a bit, and perhaps to introduce Action Points as re-rolls.
|
|
The problem is that if the saves at high level are well beyond anyone but the cleric, wizard and the paladin to regularly succeed, it takes more than just "fixing the fighter". In my opinion the easiest way would be to "bump up" all saves for all the classes a bit, and perhaps to introduce Action Points as re-rolls.As to the second part (that was cut off), FIX THE FIGHTER, DON'T DUMB EVERYTHING ELSE DOWN TO HIS OR HER LEVEL.
This is my point. I hate nerf toys.
See, I'd much rather go this direction than change spell effects I've known since 1979. Like I said, fix the problem, and the spells aren't the problem.
Action points and maybe making the difference between "good" saves and "bad" saves 3 instead of 6 at 20th might mitigate a lot of problems people have with SoD and SoS (keep the effects intact, just make them a little harder to achieve). Oh, and fix evocation while we're at it, the spells do the same (or less, with caps) than in 1e, but everyone has two to three times as many HPs. Drop the caps at least...
Actually I do see people running around with swords and arrows doing the damage of fireball spells... even at level one.
Human Barbarian, great sword, Overhand chop, str 20 to start. Str 24 while raging, means a 2d6 + 14 damage average 21 points. Without Raging he still got 2d6 + 10 for an average of 17 points. A fireball from a 5th level wizard will do average of 17 points if no one saves.
Once the actual bonuses are added in to the attacks (even with bows but not quite as badly at lower levels) the damage outclasses magic, absurdly so as a matter of fact.
However even now all the death spells are simply better blasting spells damage wise and worse blasting spells save wise (if you save there is generally no damage instead of half). So why do they need nerfed further? They are not "swingy" anymore than taking lots of damage from a monster is "swingy". Specific classes have a better chance to survive than others, and even then the most you'll see of the "Most powerful" save DC's from any one wizard are 6 spells.
2/3 of the classes have good will saves (monks, clerics, bards, wizards, sorcerers, paladins and druids).
2/3 of the classes have good fort saves (monks, clerics, fighters, barbarians, rangers, paladins, and druids).
1/3 of the classes have good ref saves (monks, bards, rangers, rogues)
1/3 of the classes do not have 2 or more good saves (fighters, wizards, rogues, and barbarians)
So it's not like there aren't plenty of people that can make these saves in a party, and help those who don't make them.
|
|
The problem is that if the saves at high level are well beyond anyone but the cleric, wizard and the paladin to regularly succeed, it takes more than just "fixing the fighter". In my opinion the easiest way would be to "bump up" all saves for all the classes a bit, and perhaps to introduce Action Points as re-rolls.As to the second part (that was cut off), FIX THE FIGHTER, DON'T DUMB EVERYTHING ELSE DOWN TO HIS OR HER LEVEL.
This is my point. I hate nerf toys.
See, I'd much rather go this direction than change spell effects I've known since 1979. Like I said, fix the problem, and the spells aren't the problem.
Action points and maybe making the difference between "good" saves and "bad" saves 3 instead of 6 at 20th might mitigate a lot of problems people have with SoD and SoS (keep the effects intact, just make them a little harder to achieve). Oh, and fix evocation while we're at it, the spells do the same (or less, with caps) than in 1e, but everyone has two to three times as many HPs. Drop the caps at least...
That's a good start, but note that I said "easiest" -- not necessarily the most "elegant" or "best" fix. I still think spells need a lot of "tweaking", and this "fix" might feel very "artificial" in play. And yet, it doesn't change anything if you fail both rolls (you're still going to die same as in 3E). It *would*, however, improve your chances, but it's virtually almost as "swingy" as the saves in 3E.
Now, what I'd like to see is the "Condition Track"-mechanic from 4E, since it'd still enable you to die, and remove you from the game for at least 2-3 rounds (unless you roll well).