SoD, how can we accommodate everyone?

[Oni]

Save or die! Some people love them, some people hate them, but for the purposes of this thread that doesn't matter. This thread is not for discussing if they are good or bad, or whether they should be included or not! WotC wants to accommodate fans of all the editions. Your challenge is this you have to capture the feel of both the SoD effects from the earlier editions of D&D as well as in how they were handled in 4e in the most elegant manner possible that requires the least amount of rules clutter. Obviously you needn't worry about capturing the feel of both simultaneously, as they are somewhat mutually exclusive. Also you need only worry about capturing the feel, not the precise mechanics of various editions. How do you do it?

There are a couple of obvious ideas that spring to mind, but I'm curious to see if we can't come up with something particularly slick or interesting.

Some things to consider is if the character sheet would require different information, if the same mechanic can be used in multiple ways. If it's something you could easily change from encounter to encounter or from power to power to give monsters and hazards a greater range of how they can interact with the characters(I know I mentioned up above only needing to be able to do one or the other in a given game, but bonus points if you can make them work together somehow). How it might affect monster write-ups, et c.

 

[trancejeremy]

Instead of dying, they lose a character level? Until a restoration spell is cast on them? Still pretty scary, but not as scary as death.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Two stage mechanics. One stage is "save or die", one stage is a multi-step damage mechanic (e.g. Con loss for poison). Let the DM choose what stage mechanic to use at the table.

 

[Minigiant]

Save or Get hurt (Healthy PCs) or Die (bloodied PCs)

Save of Get stunned (1 failed save) or Petrified (2 failed save)

Save or Take damage (Normal) or Die (Vulnerable to Necromancy)

 

[Bedrockgames]

You have optional rules for saves. The default can be save or die or the alternative. Then you have the other serve as the option. This pretty easy to do. Just like you can have 0 hp be death and build options like negative hp around it.

 

[Hassassin]

I think many save-or-die effects don't really need to be strictly SoD. For examples of how save-or-die -type spells can work within the HP system, look at 3e versions of disintegrate and power word kill.

If SoD effects are built this way, you only need to add an optional rule of "any effect that would kill a character instead puts him at -9 hp" (or whatever is the equivalent of -9 hp in 5e). That's for those who dislike lethality in general.

 

[Tony Vargas]

SoDs make the game more unpredictably lethal. Aside from that, they don't particularly harm game balance, as long as they're broadly accessible. That is, it's OK for wizards to cast disentegrate and clerics Slay Living, if fighters are throwing down Decapitation Strikes and Rogues slitting throats with their Sneak Attacks - and monsters are poisoning, immolating, petrifying, and disemboweling PCs on failed saves, too.

Those who are death-happy could use that module.

 

[howandwhy99]

I like Save or Die. You roll a save or you die.

You don't like Save or Die. I don't need to roll a save, I won't be dying today.

 

[Ratskinner]

I've never really gotten this whole argument from either side. I'm not a big fan of save or die effects (I find they usually lack drama and are uninteresting), but I don't find them the horrific game-breakers that other people seem to think they are. Generally, I'd like the things that cause SoD effects to take longer to add some drama. I liked the 4e thinking on this. Real-life poisons rarely act "instantly"...especially 400 year old poisons drying on a needle in a chest 350ft underground. Literature and fairy tales are rife with "Curses" and "hexes" that take a long, agonizing time to work their wonders. On the other hand, if somebody pours a bunch of anti-life "negative energy" into you...dying right now seems like a thing that could happen. I can't imagine any scenario where you survive dropping into lava. (Although I also can't imagine a scenario where you are standing near lava without special equipment or magical protection... that stuff is hot!)

I'm wondering if the hate for SoDs isn't an issue of inconsiderate DMing. That is, if I'm going to throw in a bunch of foes that revel in their ability to petrify or otherwise SoD you, I like to make sure you have some remedy more readily available. (Or are forewarned so that you can purchase/prepare said remedies ahead of time.) That would help ameliorate the "pain" of the SoD. However, I'd imagine that its quite annoying to be say, poisoned without warning and just keel over "roll up a new guy!" Does this sound likely to anyone else?

 

[Ratskinner]

SoDs make the game more unpredictably lethal. Aside from that, they don't particularly harm game balance, as long as they're broadly accessible. That is, it's OK for wizards to cast disentegrate and clerics Slay Living, if fighters are throwing down Decapitation Strikes and Rogues slitting throats with their Sneak Attacks - and monsters are poisoning, immolating, petrifying, and disemboweling PCs on failed saves, too.

Those who are death-happy could use that module.

I just got a funny vision of the DMG table of contents:

Modules that affect the lethality of your game (p58)

• Low Lethality (PCs are like super heroes) p58-59
• Gritty (PCs are more likely to die unless they are careful) p60
• Death Happy (Save or Die, Meatbag!) p 61