One thing I have always hated where any type of save or die spell. When ever I have a creature or encounter do a "save or die" attack or effect, I simply say that the player is reduce to 0 and passes out.
I do this because I, both as the player and the DM, have never found save or die at all fun. It might ruin the balance, but nothing spoils the moment more then to have a rogue"or some other class that has low fort and/or will saves" at max health roll a save and then is told he dies, and there is nothing he can do.
I don't mind effects that are consider save or die, like say, the sleep spell. Since that does not kill you, something else does, although I do like to reduce cheese in such encounters.
but is that technically fair? A player character getting killed is like say "YOU LOSE" in the mind of many player. While them dropping to 0 and getting knocked create a moment of "SAVE ME, GET ME OUT OF HERE, HELP ME!" Which is much more exciting and dramatic, then simply say. "You die, reroll a new character or get resurrected for -1 level."
So effects that causes characters do die easier, I don't mind, but effects that just out right slay a player, like finger of death, or death attack "Unless its an RP encounter where the target is an assassination target". Quivering Palm I'm at odd ends with. I have never had players actually run into a character with it, but I would probably allow that, in that situation, possible for more RP reasons. "The monk will cause you to die unless you do this task."
So should I use death affects as they are intended, or should I just keep to the way I've been altering them?
I find using save or die as a player takes the fun out of combat.
Actual save or die effects in Pathfinder are few and far between. Including Finger of Death, for example. Have you read the Pathfinder version?
The ones that are left I'm pretty fine with, but YMMV.
|
Pathfinder RPG has really raised the floor of Save or Die mechanics. I think completely removing them from a game takes a key fantasy element out of play. The ultimate goal of mastery over life and death becomes surreal instead of attainable.
I have never actually had a player fail a save or die roll in any game of mine. (They have always been few and far between, and usually the players have some sense of the impending danger and have prepared.) But I have included them in the stories I make because the existence of life-stealing magics and the feeling of danger keep high level adventurers interested in the game. When HP damage is the only way to die, groups grow complacent.
As a DM Save or lose spells are something that I rarely use, nothing ruins a players game faster than a single roll determining if his character lives or dies. As a matter of fact I'm not a big fan of using any spell that when a player fails causes them to be taken out of the fight.
Have I used them? Yes. But much less often that I could/should have.
That said I've played on both side of the table with players and DMs that rely upon them and I'm not a big fan it's often just a really anti-climatic end to a fight.
One way to split the difference is allowing ‘Hero Points’ to grant a reroll on saves. I’m not really sure how the GMG’s version of hero points work - it may have this as a use. But anyways, adding them to the game is great for this type of thing, where you want to keep it in the game for balance or flavor or whatever, but take the sting out of it a little.
Another thing hero points are nice for are hit point rolls. You keep the possibility there for say, the wizard being beefier than the fighter, but it won’t happen as often.
I use them sparingly but I like to keep the players on their toes with the constant threat of death
As a player, I don't mind save or die at all, as long as it is high enough level to allow a chance to get back into the game.. at very low levels save or die spells are too rough to make fun. Part of the fun of playing the character is overcoming challenges, and I don't like the idea that some challenges are set aside just because I don't have as much input in them as others. Many don't have the same mindset as I do about character death. (I always roll up 2-4 characters at the start of a campaign, and keep a copy of each leveled, in case bad things happen)
As a DM, it depends on the group. I don't think I would ever rule them out, but would definitely use them sparingly with most people. Lots of folks attach to their characters, and the point is for everyone to have fun, not to see who i can kill today.
I always have 1 character in reserve for if my character does die. having more ready probably means your GM hates you :p.
Actual save or die effects in Pathfinder are few and far between. Including Finger of Death, for example. Have you read the Pathfinder version?
The ones that are left I'm pretty fine with, but YMMV.
I did notice that, but its just something overall that I never agreed with.
I should probably look over the new resurrection rules.
Which is another problem I find a lot. When I GM, I don't mind having players have free access to resurrection, but I know so many GMs who just out right hate the idea of resurrection. Think it ether takes and tension or permanency out of any situation. "The King was assassinated, and the high cleric won't be her until tomorrow what do we do until then?" "Well... I feel like rioting, WE SHOULD RIOT." Without some contrived reason to why resurrection wont work. "The king was assassinated, AND SOMEONE STOLE HIS SOUL!"
I had one GM went so far as to say that the person that was resurrected "3.5 he was a psion" lost half his power points. Which are given to you by his class, meaning he was a gimped character forever. Although we couldn't "retire" our characters, that would mean we where two levels behind with our new characters. As appose to dieing and making a new guy meant only one level behind. I have no idea what that DMs probable was to this day.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player, i love it. Real risk = real fun. This formula, i've found in my 30+ years of gaming, has always worked out best. Nowadays, when a DM tells me that death is near impossible, I go running to another campaign. To me, it's like telling someone that you will be winning the game before it even begins, and who wants to play that?
In the last few years, especially, it has & is a really strange thing to run into such a large number of gamers that have never died, only ever retiring a character/s when the campaign/s has been retired.
Mighty Thoth has left his mental signature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use save or die as I find the threat of death keeps the game exciting.
What I didn't like was the "Finger of damage" and "damage Living" changes.
I use a something in between 3.5 and PF. A Death spell reduces your hit point total to minus the spell level - and you're dying. This keeps the death factor in the game but still gives the players at least a chance of rescuing their friend.
I use them sparingly as a player because I don't want to risk losing an entire action on one spell. As a GM I use them sparingly because I don't want a PC to die to a bad roll to be a common thing in my games. I don't think they are bad though. I just don't believe in spamming them.
I run save or dies on my PCs as much as possible. The threat of defeat makes the game worthwhile.
Plus, in most cases, they can just turn around and raise that dead character after combat no problem, or they can use break enchantment/greater dispel magic/remove curse/remove etc. to fix it with no stops taken. Preparing for the worst usually makes it so that my PC parties aren't bothered at all by any sort of save or die. Add on their normal preparations for combat such as magic circles and protective buffs and they're doubly fine. Add on hero points, and yeah, they're completely fine.
In the last 3 sessions of my Carrion Crown campaign, for example, I used 8 (give or take) save or dies on my party. Three failures, but clever planning and hero points saved most of them. Nobody died.
As a result, the PCs knew that they had to play hardball with the bad guys-- especially if they were going to dim door and use hero points on the PCs to plane shift them. So, they did. There wasn't an illusion of danger-- the PCs were actually being threatened with death every encounter. I think it made the game a lot more fun to be playing with real tigers instead of paper ones.
I should probably look over the new resurrection rules.
Which is another problem I find a lot. When I GM, I don't mind having players have free access to resurrection, but I know so many GMs who just out right hate the idea of resurrection. Think it ether takes and tension or permanency out of any situation. "The King was assassinated, and the high cleric won't be her until tomorrow what do we do until then?" "Well... I feel like rioting, WE SHOULD RIOT." Without some contrived reason to why resurrection wont work. "The king was assassinated, AND SOMEONE STOLE HIS SOUL!"I had one GM went so far as to say that the person that was resurrected "3.5 he was a psion" lost half his power points. Which are given to you by his class, meaning he was a gimped character forever. Although we couldn't "retire" our characters, that would mean we where two levels behind with our new characters. As appose to dieing and making a new guy meant only one level behind. I have no idea what that DMs probable was to this day.
Look at the assassin PrC. Specifically True Death, and Angel of Death. If you die from their death attack, you will be extremely hard to ressurect.
As a DM, I take a page from that. In my worlds, there are special poisons and spells that can be used to prevent ressurections. I rarely use these against the players unless they piss off the wrong people, but they are there. Anyone who has the power and means to assassinate the king also has the power and means to make sure he stays dead.
Speaking in GENERAL... As I think Pathfinder nerfed a lot of the save or die spells...
In 2E, I have a wizard who uses them a LOT!!! I LOVE THEM... Polymorph Other. Permenant! SOOOOOO MUCH FUN!
That said, I think that for THIS guy, they are downright NECESSARY. He's 9th level and topped out at 29 hp... in 2E he'll only be getting ONE hp a level from here on out.
As a pansy like that... He can't AFFORD to have a "Real" battle with his opponents. It all comes down to saves and his mystical magical might.
On the other hand...
I absolutely HATE Hold person. Any spell that immediately takes you out of the fight, and doesn't let you do anything at all... untill the battle is over... is both annoying and MASSIVELY frustrating. I showed up tonight to PLAY... not fail a save and watch the rest of you play for 3 hours ;)
At least KILL me and I can start planning my back up character :P
However... Out of curiosity... Now switching to Pathfinder SPECIFIC...
we just fought a colossal giant spider in an AP, and it did like 84 points of damage on round one with a crit.... Our ranger regularaly does 60+ on a crit... and she has a SWEET crit range... and is up to 3 attacks a round....
What is the difference between.... take 85 damage when I have 70 hp.... and fail save and die...
It's still one roll.. it's still one round... I don't REALLY see why ONE sucks so much worse then the other...
In pathfinder it seems like most battles RARELY last more then a few rounds ANYWAY... why does it matter so much HOW it ended?
Speaking in GENERAL... As I think Pathfinder nerfed a lot of the save or die spells...
In 2E, I have a wizard who uses them a LOT!!! I LOVE THEM... Polymorph Other. Permenant! SOOOOOO MUCH FUN!
That said, I think that for THIS guy, they are downright NECESSARY. He's 9th level and topped out at 29 hp... in 2E he'll only be getting ONE hp a level from here on out.
As a pansy like that... He can't AFFORD to have a "Real" battle with his opponents. It all comes down to saves and his mystical magical might.
On the other hand...
I absolutely HATE Hold person. Any spell that immediately takes you out of the fight, and doesn't let you do anything at all... untill the battle is over... is both annoying and MASSIVELY frustrating. I showed up tonight to PLAY... not fail a save and watch the rest of you play for 3 hours ;)
At least KILL me and I can start planning my back up character :P
Look at the PF version of hold person. You get a save each round to break free.
Speaking in GENERAL... As I think Pathfinder nerfed a lot of the save or die spells...
In 2E, I have a wizard who uses them a LOT!!! I LOVE THEM... Polymorph Other. Permenant! SOOOOOO MUCH FUN!
That said, I think that for THIS guy, they are downright NECESSARY. He's 9th level and topped out at 29 hp... in 2E he'll only be getting ONE hp a level from here on out.
As a pansy like that... He can't AFFORD to have a "Real" battle with his opponents. It all comes down to saves and his mystical magical might.
On the other hand...
I absolutely HATE Hold person. Any spell that immediately takes you out of the fight, and doesn't let you do anything at all... untill the battle is over... is both annoying and MASSIVELY frustrating. I showed up tonight to PLAY... not fail a save and watch the rest of you play for 3 hours ;)
At least KILL me and I can start planning my back up character :P
However... Out of curiosity... Now switching to Pathfinder SPECIFIC...
we just fought a colossal giant spider in an AP, and it did like 84 points of damage on round one with a crit.... Our ranger regularaly does 60+ on a crit... and she has a SWEET crit range... and is up to 3 attacks a round....
What is the difference between.... take 85 damage when I have 70 hp.... and fail save and die...
It's still one roll.. it's still one round... I don't REALLY see why ONE sucks so much worse then the other...
In pathfinder it seems like most battles RARELY last more then a few rounds ANYWAY... why does it matter so much HOW it ended?
Yes yes, this is true. Casters are indeed very squishy for that reason. Not to mention that a fighter or rogue could potentially do so much more damage it doesn't matter what your health is, you are going to die. I have heard this argument before, and indeed I do agree with it on a mechanical level. It is also why I HATE level 1 campaigns. "The Kobold critically hits you with a long spear and rolled max damage...."
I would say, in the case of melee combat, they have to run towards you, and have several other factors to see if they can even hit you in the first place. While with someone with a save or die ability "Death Gaze ATTACKS! MEDUSA STARE!" that some monsters get just out right mean you lose from a distance, and its an area of effect.
Now an archer or a sniper on the other hand... but I'm not speaking in terms of pvp though. If the caster was in range of some raging orc, the fighter wasn't doing his job. If a mindflare decided to finger of death "3.5 rules" there wasn't anything you or your party could do about it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both as a player and a GM, I'm completely in favor of Save or Die rolls. Not every session, of course, but at least once per adventure. The threat of death makes it that much more interesting.
As a player, for instance. A couple of months ago I was playing an inquisitor (Lvl. 6). Our party entered a [very] haunted house, and eventually got to the final encounter for the night, the spirit of a corrupted cleric. We were not so high on hit points and the spellcasters were running low. We were shown a vision of the crimes he'd committed and they were, well, ugly. The party had to destroy a seal that kept the spirit from moving on (down), but the ghost could cast spells and was being a real bugger.
So my inquisitor (whose character background specifically stated had a real beef with corrupted clerics and the like) told the rest of the party to destroy and seal and lunged at the ghost, who'd become tangible. It tried a ranged touch attack and failed, and my inquisitor went into an adrenaline-and-righteous-anger rush and grappled the apparition and grabbed it by the throat while reciting an exorcism (just for flavor's sake). The apparition cast Slay Living twice in two rounds, and both times I saved, and kept the grapple on it and kept on trying to exorcise it (again, just roleplaying it, no mechanical effect whatsoever). In the third round the rest of the party managed to destroy the seals and the apparition seemed to burn up in the inquisitor's hands as the haunt was lifted.
Now, if the effects of those two Slay Living castings had been anything else than death, the sense of accomplishment of surviving it wouldn't have been nearly as epic.
In my opinion, Save or Die rolls add an important level of uncertainty to the game. Considering a dwarf barbarian could walk away from a four-mile-high fall (it happened in our group, 20d6 added 49 and the bugger had over 140hp), stumbling into something that might actually kill you with little effort can make a gaming session really entertaining.
As a player and as a DM, I like them. I like the tension hanging on the result of one die roll.
I like games with a sense of risk. No risk equals no fun for me. Strangely, I do have a player that would probably prefer to be playing in 1st-3rd encounters with his 12th level character. I am pretty certain he plays all games on GODMODE as well.
Truthfully, they do not usually appear (in my games) until well after spells like Raise Dead appear. At least in the games I have been a member.
As for the NPC that dies and the plot of the story is that he remains dead, I use Golarion setting so it is very simple. Either the soul has already been judged by Pharasma or the soul does not wish to return. Both situations will block the spells. DM fiat? Yep. And built into the game world. (yay!)
Just curious, how many have said, "No, thanks" to a Raise Dead? *Raises hand* I have.
Greg
Just curious, how many have said, "No, thanks" to a Raise Dead? *Raises hand* I have.
Many, many times.
More please. Both as a player and GM I want save or die in the game. There are just some things that are so dangerous they kill. End of story.
|
|
I think the erosion of spells such as Finger of Death, and even Hold Person makes ever encounter turn into 'out with the little plastic figures and the battle-mat'. It seems to me that by removing very real threats of death with very real threats of getting slightly hurt or held for one round cheapens the experience and turns every encounter into a 'battle-mat combat encounter'.
Why bother thinking about how to actively avoid or get the best of an enemy "before" the fight starts when now all that really counts is getting a battle-mat terrain advantage and flanking?
If a party is dumb enough to go up against a creature with save or die abilities and allow it to use those abilities on it's own terms - I say good luck to you. Sure bad things with high INT can get the jump on the party - but adventuring is dangerous - er, correction, adventuring WAS dangerous - now we have game designers with safety nets available to all PC's.
Bring back Finger of Death!!! That's a beam that KILLS you DEAD for the younger viewers...
S.
As I'm reading I see that people are taking not using save or die as a type of "easy mode" or "god mode". Then some people taking it as removing death altogether.
Yes, you have a lower mortality rate, but I'm not saying remove risk. Who said that. Nobody said remove death from the game. We where taking about save or die. For example, I stated in my alternative, that save or die drops a player to 0 and knocks them out. If they are knocked out, anything can Coup de grâce them to finish them off, and if the party runs away, they would be leaving their member there to die. I'm not saying remove death. However, their party members can help them resume the fight by some type of healing. "Unless you are really just that knocked out I suppose", and like a mention before, the panic that you might not make it in time to save them.
So you aren't removing death, just situations like "You enter a room with a monster, it does an area gaze attack. Everyone roll a save... 3/5 of you die." Chances are, the rest will die soon from one round.
Basically, removing events like "you enter a room, make a save, you die, good game".
I've had several experiences as well where someone dies with in the first hour of play by one of these effects, and would sit there for another hour until ether the DM lets them "introduce a new character" but not until the party reached a new town. In some situations this could mean the player may not play for the rest of the night, and would ether leave, or start playing on their phone and/or turn on the TV. Can you blame them? They didn't do anything stupid, they just rolled low, and now they wasted an evening. If by having a real threat of character death means you waste several real world hours.
Again though, if Resurrection is a spell on hand, then something like save or die isn't something you should be worried about ether. So this mostly applies to lower level campaigns, or, as mentioned above, people who completely hate the idea of resurrection, as I got the pleasure of playing.
"The vampire has killed your best friend. What do you do?" (I swear revenge and curse the vampire. I then ask the cleric to resurrect him so we can ask how the vampire looked like.) The DM's face was priceless, and from then on, when playing with that DM "and a few other moments where we completely bypassed events with spells like teleportation and fly...", every campaign has a restriction or ban on casters, and is "super realistic." but thats a story for another day.
I don't always use Save or Die, but when I do, I aim for their weak save.
Stay lethal, my friends.
|
|
I've had several experiences as well where someone dies with in the first hour of play by one of these effects, and would sit there for another hour until ether the DM lets them "introduce a new character" but not until the party reached a new town.
Key word is 'several' - in a world where you know that these affects exist wouldn't you be slightly prepared? Sure 'crap happens' but you need to ask yourself, could we as players have avoided/mitigated/changed the situation that resulted in needing to make a 'save or die'. As a player I would have to be a special kind of stupid, in 1e at least, if when facing an evil cleric that the potential of getting reduced to a pool of goo didn't enter our planning. It is sort of like going to war without armor and then complaining you didn't know the enemy would have weapons!
Still if you play D&D/PF like a game of DOOM then I can see how SoD spells would ruin your day. Then again thanks to the 'always cast spells even in battles' d20 casting mechanics, SoD spells have become more potent. So I guess the new "Save be be Slightly Inconvenienced" spells brings those spells in line with the casting mechanics?
S.
Baneful polymorph has become one of my SoD's of choice. Quest/Geas is another good one. Toppling magic missile can be a great spell for battlefield control.
Still if you play D&D/PF like a game of DOOM then I can see how SoD spells would ruin your day.
You mean the video game? I don't know what your getting at. Although I did think that game was great back in the day. I don't know what people had against part 3 and the expansion.
Also that is not a good thing that people in your campaigns are starting to see Iron Will as a requirement to play. Remember, as a GM, you control everything. You could make them fight against 5 ancient red dragons while they are at level 1. Which wouldn't be very balanced. Which I think is what that comes down too. Although will is such a God Save, you might just take it anyway. If you just drop dead despite no other injuries, would that seem very balanced? "and no, pvp in this isn't balance before anyone gets into that." Probably more of a perspective thing too. "Its an ancient dragon, it looks at you and breath fire, you take x damage, you die." As appose to "You see a Bodak, it looks at you, you die." Probably one reason they turned it to negative levels in pathfinder. :p
This tread is getting a bit confusing. It is just weird to me to say, “We want lethal all the way.” Then in the next breath say you are being stupid if you actually die. I mean I get it, but is lethal really lethal if the lethality is mitigated into nothing? Sounds to me like some like lethal in theory only. They want the illusion of lethality so they can feel all superior to those that… you know… actually die (and stay dead).
I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that per se, just it is self-aggrandizing, no?
Actual save or die effects in Pathfinder are few and far between. Including Finger of Death, for example. Have you read the Pathfinder version?
The ones that are left I'm pretty fine with, but YMMV.
Exactly. Newer players may not really know what an actual "save or die" effect is. The term comes from 1st and 2nd Editions, where you had seven or so different kinds of saves, one of which was actually against "Death" or "Death Effects," depending on your edition, and some others of which (such as poison) literally were ruled by a mechanic in which you either made your save, or instantly died. You could encounter such an effect at virtually any level. A spider killed my very first character (a 1st level fighter) the very first time I played, with a single bite.
The 3.x/Pathfinder mechanic of most saves being a damage or ability damage thing, with saves for half and multiple possible save attempts, all at relatively reasonable numbers, is way easier on the nerves. I have nothing whatsoever to complain about with this system.
|
|
I don't like save or die effects because I neither see surviving one nor winning with one as my accomplishment.
I certainly agree that there's nothing satisfying about winning when there's no chance of losing. I want to be challenged. But I want to know that when I win, it's not just because I got lucky, but because I did things right.
That is, if you get hit by a save or die, it's a coin flip. Frequently, this isn't a test of my ability to build a character, or a test of my tactics, or anything like that. Instead, it's simply a test of luck.
On the other hand, when the risk comes in the form of opponents who are just as strong and tough and capable as me, then the difference between winning and losing becomes more a matter of skill. If I do things right, I should probably win, and if I do things wrong, I should probably lose. There's still the element of chance, but now the outcome doesn't hinge on a single roll of the die.
The point is if you have "weighted" the coin in your favour beforehand or not.
I see a lot of people in these board saying "My X save sucks, so I don't care about increasing it, I will even dump the relevant characteristic, after all it make no difference". The reality is exactly the opposite.If you save only with a roll of 20 and get a +1 modifier, saving with 19-20 after the increase, you have just doubled your chance of surviving.
That is an extreme example, but most of the time taking some reasonable precaution can increase your capacity to successfully make a ST by a good margin. The right spell, choosing the right magic item, taking a few precautions can all change the situation and even make you invulnerable for a time to some attacks.
The school of playing "It is good only if I am chipped a piece at a time" don't appeal to me.
it make encounters extremely predictable.
I do X damage over T time, my target has H hp.
My enemy do Xa damage over the same T time and I have Ha hp.
If H/X>Ha/Xa I lose.
If H/X<Ha/Xa I win.
Even worse if that apply only to players and NPC are still subject to save or die effects.
To the OP:
you don't need convoluted reasons why someone will not be raised from the dead.
His soul has always the choice not to return.
It can be because he feel he has done his service, because he is in a pleasant afterlife, because he don't want to return to a old and frail body, etcetera etcetera.
Then you have the game world specific reasons. In Golarion after Pharasma has judged you you can't be raised or resurrected. The only way to return you to life would be to recover the soul visiting the appropriate plane. As Pharasma has her goals and motivations she can easily judge someone soul as soon as he die if she feel it will further them.
Then there is the problem of finding sufficiently high level clerics of the right deity. Most of the time a cleric will not raise a follower of a different god.
So being raised isn't a guaranteed at all, even for rulers.
|
they do not usually appear (in my games) until well after spells like Raise Dead appear ...
Just curious, how many have said, "No, thanks" to a Raise Dead?
What is the difference between.... take 85 damage when I have 70 hp.... and fail save and die...
At this point, 5k gold for a raise dead isn't quite trivial, but it's certainly doable
Do you know that Raise Dead CAN'T be used to raise a creature killed by a Death Effect. You'll need a higher level spell to come back alive for example Resurrection.
It makes some difference between normal damage and that save or die effect, as the cost and the availability of the spell needed to restore the dead character to life are really not the same.
I think one reason save or die is now seen less often is that character creation involves a lot more. Even in 2nd edition, the most complicated character took less time than the average 3.5/PF character. This tends to mean that it isn't something that a player can just whip out in 5 minutes and be back in the game anymore, especially if they find themselves having to do it on a routine basis.
I like them.
Do you know that Raise Dead CAN'T be used to raise a creature killed by a Death Effect. You'll need a higher level spell to come back alive for example Resurrection.
It makes some difference between normal damage and that save or die effect, as the cost and the availability of the spell needed to restore the dead character to life are really not the same.
Sorry, yep, I do know that. I still read SoD as SoL. So mentally, I have been including those spells as well. And yes, I still include SoD. And yes, my players I DM and the players I am with in another game both do not want the spells removed. It would take away the "feel" of the game for us, as one player said.
Greg
I don't have a problem with players using them alot.
As a GM, I use them sparingly but I do use them. Especially the BBEG. He should be a serious threat.
Besides as others have said, the Hero points system (or the Ebberron action points system) make it even less common for a failed save.
So should I use death affects as they are intended, or should I just keep to the way I've been altering them?
Also, sorry again to Lockgo. I was lazy, I read the post title and skimmed the original post and somehow missed this last line. Perhaps I was too excited to share why my groups like our ways.
And now to answer the original question. What our groups do should have little to no bearing upon your group. If the altered rule is more fun for your group ( as your post indicates ) than play with your altered rules. Rule of Fun supersedes stranger's opinions.
Greg
EDIT
I'd like to see Save or Die effects work more like suffocate with multiple saves and each save having an effect.
I still want a few pure Save or Die effects. But I like effects like tearing the heart out, taking a person's breath. or breaking all their bones to have multiple saves each one having an effect.
This weekend as a GM I had an 11th level enemy deep gnome illusionist cast a Persistent Phantasmal Killer at a 10th level monk PC. Then he cast another one at the same PC later in the fight - and the monk died.
I felt bad about it - as I always do when a PC dies. I even felt guilty when I was building the encounter. But at the time I was thinking - this is definitely something the players would do, so why not this NPC? I was also thinking that no one was going to actually die from it - especially the monk.
For the most part my players accept that death is a part of the game, in fact they require that to be the case. But this is the 2nd or 3rd time this PC has died. He is a bit reckless sometimes, but still I hate killing a PC multiple times.
At the end of the game session I re-introduced the idea of using hero points.
I hate save or die spells. Having played a wizard I find they fail more often than they work. It's great when the work though but really suck when they don't. That's just my bad luck as the DM rolled in the open. It's like save, he needs 16 or higher the DM rolls a 18. Round wasted and I'm down 1 spell. Save and suck less or save and suck spells appeal to me better, you at least get some minor effect if they save.
As DM it's even worse as players have better saves for the most part.
I rarely just spring a save or die spell on the PCs. But I like to let them know that they're out there.
For example:
While traveling through an area, the party hears a rumor of the terrible necromancer living in the forest. Maybe someone in town tells them he can kill a person just by looking at them. If the party decides to enter the forest anyway, they might come across the bodies of a couple of knights lying on the ground where they fell with no apparent injuries. Knowledge checks might let the party know that these knights were of comparable power to their own.
At this point, the party knows what they're up against. If they want to continue, so be it.
All that said, the effects of death have been so diluted over the past several editions of the game that there's not much actual risk left anyway. Short of DM fiat or some such, death may as well be "I was in a coma and it cost me 7000 gp to wake up." Risking life and limb to complete some noble goal is awesome; risking a minor inconvenience to achieve that same goal is rather less so.
While I acknowledge the mechanics that would make that so, I don't agree that the actual sociology of it bears out. Human nature is funnier than that. Yes, there are people who will prefer their characters to be raised or resurrected. But they are fewer and farther between than you might think.
Of all the characters who have died since 3.0, in my own games or in a game where I was a player, not one of us asked to be brought back. And when another player or the GM asked, we all said no.
The reason is that, for a lot of people, the character is "ruined" for us when he dies. We don't want a handout. We don't want a "spoiled" version of our guy. We wish he didn't die because we wish we could have him back the way he was. But now he's just ruined, and most of us just move on.
That's my experience, anyway. In fact, that's always been my experience, going back 31 years. In all that time, I've only ever known one player who regularly got his characters raised.