The latest legends and lore column
I really like this, although I'm willing to bet it would be contentious. It highlights the abstract nature of hit points - rather than exacerbating the easy-to-fall-into-trap of thinking of them as physical damage or lack thereof.
I found the poll from last week illustrative too. Broadly, Vancian, At-will/Encounter/Daily and point-based all had sizable proportions of the fanbase preferring them. I have relatively high hopes that this at least can be addressed through the modularity of the system they're shooting for.
Not that I'd like it this way, but it's also fixed deadliness on level and then becomming progressively less deadly as the heroes climb the power ladder.
|
A great disadvantage of this idea is, to me, is that the tie with hit points means that all save or die power will be affected by the target's toughness and physicality (more hit points usually accompany a more physical character). Therefore, a wizard is more likely to be turned to stone by a medusa than a fighter, or die from a powerful spell. No reason for that.
@Bluenose - the article specifically calls out spells/monster abilities, true, but you know, what you said got me thinking:
There's no reason this couldn't be applied to 'martial' characters as well.
An assassin's Death Strike, for example, could automatically kill any creature at or below, say, X HP. X would depend on a lot of things (mostly monster/NPC HP inflation), but should be set at a number that represents a large swath of NPC hit points. That way you can stealth around the castle, killing the guards in one shot, until you get to the guard captains or other powerful dudes.
You can do the same thing for fighters; maybe there's a feat called Deathblow that automatically kills any creature reduced to 10 HP or less by one of your attacks.
I dunno, it seems like it's something worth playing with for sure. If the effect allows a save on top of the HP requirement, you also don't HAVE to reveal monster HP; after all, if the spell fails, the player doesn't know if the monster passed it's save or had too many HP left ...
Then again, you might want to keep all the HP visible to everyone on the basis of fairness; after all, the DM tends to know how many HP the party has left.
Or both sides could play a bit closer to the chest!
ramble over ...
@Lord Snow: actually, that's pretty much the status quo right now. After all, wizards get poor fort saves (and might not have a ton in CON), fighters get good fort saves. And a lot of save or die effects require Fort saves ...
|
I had heard this sort of Save or Die system talked about before (cannot think where, it may even have been on the WotC site somewhere) however in that discussion I thought they talked about proportional HP thresholds e.g. only be affected by Save or Die when at one half HP, or one quarter HP.
I actually like the fixed HP threshold better, as it allows immediate save or die affects at full HP if you are too low level to take on the monster, e.g. a Level 2 Fighter taking on a Level 9 monster.
It also supports the narrative conceit of the NPC red shirts getting killed off easier than the protagonists (because the protagonists are higher level and have higher HP).
It is simple yet elegant.
|
|
They seem to be trying to bring back save-or-die without having it be quite so arbitrary... Though it doesn't really sound much less arbitrary, frankly. It has a certain logic but for me I'd prefer effects like these to maybe be linked progressively to attacks/saves - i.e. you have to be affected and maybe get slowed, then paralysed, then stoned with each successive successful attack or failed save - rather than this, which could lead to some perverse metagaming behaviours around damage and healing. On the other hand, it is possibly easier to track and quicker.
I think the impact of save or die is much more pronounced with the more recent editions of the game that it was back in the day. Here's why I say this. Back in the day PCs had much lower hit points, especially at low levels. A first level basic PC might only start with 1 hit point and at most might have 11 I believe (fighter with max on d8 hit die and CON bonus of 3). And when you hit 0 hit points, by the book you were dead. No hovering on death's door or negative hit points or death saves. This means it was very possible for one or two hits during combat to kill the beginning PC, even without a save or die effect. An extreme effect like poison or turn to stone killing that PC in a save or die was quite reasonable.
That said, it wasn't as big a deal when you could create a new first level character in under five minutes without any tools other than dice and a pencil. My brother and I were making some characters using the 1981 basic book the other day and we made a whole party up in under 30 minutes.
A second factor was that there wasn't an escalating DC for how hard the save or die would be. By high levels, most PCs had something above a 60% chance of succeeding at the save. At very high levels I think almost all of the saves were 2s meaning a 95% chance of success.
So, in a nut shell, low level PCs were weak but easily replaced if they met an unfortunate end - something that could easily happen every encounter. High level PCs had a great chance of shrugging off lethal effects, but the risk was still there to create tension.
Nowadays, I'd hate to spend a lot of time working on a PC to have him dead from one hit or one failed save - especially if making the PC without a character generator.
To strike a balance I might use a system where if you aren't bloodied, then you get a bonus equal to your CON bonus or something on your save for an instant death effect but no bonus if bloodied. Some effects like poison I might do something like continuing damage for failed saves some number of rounds until you succeed but a save that fails on a roll of one strikes you dead.
L
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I'd prefer effects like these to maybe be linked progressively to attacks/saves - i.e. you have to be affected and maybe get slowed, then paralysed, then stoned with each successive successful attack or failed save - rather than this, which could lead to some perverse metagaming behaviours around damage and healing.
I really like the simplicity that 4E introduced with regard to death saving throws and progressive save or die effects. One bad roll of the dice wouldn't decide your fate, and such effects became more dramatic. After rolling two bad death saves, or needing one more fail to go from paralyzed to stoned, things got pretty tense.
...I'd prefer effects like these to maybe be linked progressively to attacks/saves - i.e. you have to be affected and maybe get slowed, then paralysed, then stoned with each successive successful attack or failed save - rather than this, which could lead to some perverse metagaming behaviours around damage and healing.I really like the simplicity that 4E introduced with regard to death saving throws and progressive save or die effects. One bad roll of the dice wouldn't decide your fate, and such effects became more dramatic. After rolling two bad death saves, or needing one more fail to go from paralyzed to stoned, things got pretty tense.
+1
Another approach could be overcomming the defense by certain margin to achieve greater result...
Not sure if I like this approach. It encourages the "I'm a full HPs, nothing can stop me and I have no need to be prudent" type of mentality.
IMO, save-or-die abilities should include a way to avoid the effect, which could imply some self-imposed penalties (like averting eyes with the medusa) or require some player ingenuity. Only if the players throw caution to the wind should they be subject to a save-or-die effect.
The best thing out of the article IMO is while making sure that SoD abilities are not 100% successful, they should also come with partial effects on a successful save. What irritates me more than a "save-or-die" spell is a "save negates" spell. If casters had access to more partial effects, they might not be encouraged to make their spell absurdly hard to resits and thus create a bid deal about save-or-die/disable spells...
'findel
Too many otherwise useful spells are sidelined because the saves are too easy to make, and there's no point in casting them except at creatures that aren't worth wasting a spell on.
This is true of nearly every RPG I've ever played, lol.
I do use some "save now or die" house rule mechanics in D&D 4e.
If there is no fear of death, no matter how extreme the threat and silly the PC actions then you're missing out on some potential excitement, fun, and creativity at the gaming table.
In service,