|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 2:38PM
#1
|
|
|
I’m sorry if something like this has been talked about in another thread, but I didn’t really see anything about it and I want to bring this up.
Anyway, people seem to have very opposing views on whether or not save-or-die effects should be a part of D&D Next. I don’t want to start an argument about which side is right, I just want to acknowledge that people have different views on this subject. It may be easy for people to say ‘if you don’t like them, take them out’ or ‘if you want them, just put them in’, but I think whichever camp the designers settle on will affect other aspects of the game, so it is an important consideration for making D&D Next.
Now, I’m talking specifically about the save-or-die type effects, not whether or not PCs should die at all (which is an entirely different subject). To me, a save-or-die effect is when one (or less than three) die roll takes a character from full health to death. In 3.5 and before, these usually came in two packages.
First is when a low level character (usually first level) takes a critical hit and dies. I’m trying not to make too many personal calls in this post, but I really think this needs to stay out. It was an artifact of the mathematics of those editions, where characters needed a few levels for hit points to ‘catch up’ with weapon damage output and be able to survive a few hits. 4e maneuvered around this by bolstering the hit points of new characters, which was a great idea. It meant that a single goblin attack gone awry wouldn’t force a player to make a new character.
Second is the collection of spells and abilities that basically state save-or-die in the effect. Again, it means a single poor roll could mean the end of a character, but this problem was diminished by the arrival of raise dead spells when the death spells started to become available. This can definitely have a place in D&D, but maybe doesn’t belong in every game of D&D.
But how does choosing one over the other affect other areas of play. Well, consider if save-or-die are part of the base game. Players need more access to resurrections spells, especially at higher levels. In fact, in some of my 3.5 games it wasn’t uncommon for a player to be to be revived multiple times over the course of a high level adventure. Also, we need a variety of spells and effects that can be used to prevent or resist instant death. And then the lethality of any higher level encounter can be raised, because access to these powers give players a way to reset if something goes wrong. A similar snowball effect occurs without the presence of any save-or-die effects.
So should the save-or-die effects be in D&D Next? My opinion is that the base game should be designed without them, but all the save-or-die spells, effects, and monster abilities can be put into an optional module that the DM can add to the game if they prefer. My main reason is that it is easier to add something to the game than remove. If they are an optional part of the game and the DM allows it, players will be excited at the new options the DM is opening for them. If they are part of the base game and the DM wants them out, the player’s will be mad that some of their existing options are being taken away.
That’s my take on it. What do you all think?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 3:30PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
I agree. I think SoDs are easier to add in than remove (not so much from the player aspect but moreso from the monster side, since you want an ability that captures the same feeling without actually killing characters in a single roll).
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 4:23PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2004
|
There's another thing you forgot - class balance. 3rd edition had this so in it's system (the save-or-die) that it created a flaw within the game. If you were a spellcaster of some sort then you have the access to those kind of SoD things much more then if you'd picked a warrior or a monk (and other classes).
I think it should be noted that in order to create a balanced game (and I'm hoping that we are going in that direction) then those types of spells need to be cut out. I don't mind the bazillion hp damage spells or the sleep spells, since you can both avoid part of the damage with tactics/spells/clever use of the surrounding and they could eventually wear off. While spells like disintigrate or implosion were a game-breaker.
I'd much rather have a different kind of "finishing spell" where you can end a fight with a spell or special manouver only when certain criteria was met (think of coup-de-grae only with spell). If you can hit monster with 'link' that prevents movement and you inflicted a bleeding wound than you can cast "blood loss" or something and the monster then dies (with another save, ofcourse). Or say a spell that drains a level each 6 rounds, etc.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 6:46PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
I see no problems with including SoD effects.
Crits and just plain good rolls on weapon damage? These things are just bound to happen at some point.
On the players side?
Most players expect, even want, some sort of crit mechanic. They LIKE doing massive damage to foes.
Likewise, if a foes weak enough? Say a basic orc or such? Players like to see them go down in 1 shot when they roll high enough.
They also like to see ogres etc get one-shotted - providing their character really is awesome enough to OS such a creature.
(4e minions though? Those need not apply. That's just 4e stealing your characters awesome. Sure, you one-shotted that ogre minion. Congrats, you did something that any schmoe could manage by rolling a 20. Aren't you special.)
Over on the monsters side?
Sure, as the DM you might not want to drop a character early on. Or you might not want to crit a higher lv character to death.
But if you take away the foes ability to crit? Then pretty quick it'll seem pretty strange to the players. And they'll soon come to the conclusion that you won't actually harm their characters no matter what they do. Then you've got a problem.
So I think it's best to just leave this kind of SoD alone. Just let the dice fall as they may.
SoD effects from spells, traps, poisons, etc;
Players side:
So what if they players hit the foes with this stuff? In general the players are suppossed to kill off the badguys/monsters.
As the DM it shouldn't bother you. And as the DM you can do anything you want if having the foe drop dead right now isn't conveniant. Afterall, maybe you need the target around for later plots? Maybe you just want the fight to go a few more rounds? Maybe you want to soak a few more such effects off the party to make another encounter more chalenging?
And you don't owe the players any explanation of how the target survived.
DMs side:
You're the DM. You don't HAVE to equip the parties foes with this stuff. Or make attacks with wyvern stings or whatever. Or make SoD traps.....
So there's no harm being done by the game having these effects
But if you take them completely out of the game? Then all your doing is robbing someone else (mostly likely new people) from deciding how they want their games to run.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 7:29PM
#5
|
|
|
Firstly, it should probably say 'Character Death', not 'Player Death'. Player death is a whole nother problem ...
As far as death goes, it should be infrequent, and when it happens it should be dramatic and meaningful. One of the worst things D&D ever started was the idea of characters as disposable resources. You're not going to create a character background if you can't expect the character to live long enough to explore it. There's no point in investing yourself in a character you won't be playing for any length of time.
Additionally, frequent death takes all the drama and sting out of it. So does easy access to resurrection. "We lost another one? Oh well." is just as bad for RP as "He died a hero's death ... and now, he can do it again."
Save Or Dies, specifically, aren't interesting at all, and they destroy the idea of tactical combat. it doesn't matter how you set up, what choices you made, what teamwork you've done ... it comes down to one lousy die roll. Utterly boring and makes player choice useless ... unless those choices were ways to negate the SoD. SoD needs to die and stay dead.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 8:05PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2004
|
I like Save or Die abilities, spells, items etc... What I think has been missed is that they come in many flavors.
When a party is in a fight, is there really a difference between a wizard dissintergrating an ogre or a wizard turning the ogre to stone and then having a fighter come up and shatter the lovely new statue?
Is there a difference between a rogue using sneak attack, backstab and poison and doing enough in that attack to kill the target or a fighter using a vorpal sword and getting a critical hit?
Anything can be an SoD if it's worked out to be such.
In one encounters meeting I attended, a fighter used a power that allowed him to slide a target one square of his choosing, he choose to slide the target off a cliff.
When I run a game, I tell the players that monsters can do everything you can do. If they act stupid, they'll suffer the consequences. That they don't have to fight to the death, they can always run away or surrender. Monsters do the same.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 8:10PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2007
|
Just my opinion of course but I don't like save-or-die abilities, either for the monsters or the players. They make it so that one bad roll can turn a reasonable encounter into a one-hit wonder or party wipe. Players don't like it when it happens to them, and when it happens to monsters it to me always feel like a cheap victory.
That being said I wouldn't mind if save-or-die abilities were available as optional rules for DMs that want have them. So long as I can easily not have them in my own group without having to do alot of game patching I'll be happy.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 10:47PM
#8
|
|
|
As far as death goes, it should be infrequent, and when it happens it should be dramatic and meaningful.
That's a matter of preference for a particular playstyle. I don't happen to share your preference, but that doesn't make your preference less valid.
As for the rules dictating that characters only die when it's dramatic and meaningful... that's impossible. The rules have no way to know when it's dramatic and meaningful. All they can do is give you permission to do what you, as the DM, don't really need permission to do: Prevent character death when you feel it's inappropriate.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 6:20AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2007
|
It makes me scared to think that in D&DN the players have to fear for their lives.... not to mention that it seems to expect the DM to carry out these death sentances.
 Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 6:44AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
I agree that Save or Die and auto-death effects should be avoided.
I prefer a Save or Save or Die mechanic personally. It keeps the dreaded nature enought while being a little more forgiving. First/Second/Third Failed Save is a good mechanic to express that.
Exemple of a powerful Poison delivered by a Spider's Bite could be:
Bite (Poison)
Hit: 1d6+2 damage and the target takes Ongoing 10 poison damage (save end).
First Failed Save: The target is also weakened (save end).
Second Failed Save: The target dies.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
