D&D 5E Should 5e have save or die?

[Mr. Patient]

I don't have my Trailblazer rules handy, and haven't actually played with them in any case, but I seem to recall that they allow PCs to spend action points (not quite the same as 4e action points) when faced with save or dies. The action point grants you another save, I think?

Not sure how well it works in practice, but it seems like a good start at least.

 

[Dragonblade]

No save or die, suck, lose. If it exists should only be an option for advanced players.

 

[ferratus]

I don't have my Trailblazer rules handy, and haven't actually played with them in any case, but I seem to recall that they allow PCs to spend action points (not quite the same as 4e action points) when faced with save or dies. The action point grants you another save, I think?

Not sure how well it works in practice, but it seems like a good start at least.

Actually, Fate points giving rerolls would be a good way to neutralize save or die ending the campaign, and could be fairly modular. I think I would be happy if I had three rolls for every save or die spell/effect I would take, so maybe that's a way to compromise.

Now ability and level draining I hate even more than save or die. A weakness effect halving your damage is far easier to calculate than recalculating all the things on your character sheet affected by strength or removing levels. I could even accept weakness being a more permanent condition than it is in 4e if I don't have to go back to level draining.

I must confess though, I feel like the compromise is largely one way. I am starting to feel that most of the people who I argue with on what makes a good D&D game don't want a new edition. They just want to WotC to re-release them a new hardcover copies of 1e and re-release new paper versions of the classic 1e products.

 

[Plane Sailing]

My personal preference is for there to be save, save or die (and for weaker but still nasty foes save, save, save or die).

I want lethal or debilitating effects which bypass hit points, and I also want there to be decision points which can be taken after that first save, because it allows drama and options.

Cheers

 

[keterys]

So basically the 4E option - Hit: Blah. Failed Save: Suck. or Second Failed Save: Suck.

 

[hanez]

I'm not going to ban necromancy and poison from the game, try again. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

I don't see how the game can get along just fine with assassins, whose very job description is killing human beings quickly, without save or die, but monsters and mages can't. If assassins without save or die can exist in a game without the rules causing cognative dissonance, there is no reason a medusa has to instantly kill.

Heck, what does it matter if the person has one saving throw, or whether they have the more generous 3 saving throws? How does only one saving throw make it better for immersion? Why is ongoing 10 hp of damage from poison (giving a cleric 12-60 seconds to come over with a neutralize poison spell) not as immersive as a lethal poison that instantly kills you?

Who said ban necromancny from the game? I meant you could remove A SPELL or A MONSTER. And perhaps assassins should have the ability to have a save or die, why not?. I am not puttin forward the argument that finger of death should be save or die. What I am saying is DONT totally remove this mechanic from the game because some players don't like dying and want the game play to be super balanced and fair. Leave that kind of coddling for video games, we have DMs who can be nice when it fits the story, and mean when it doesnt.

 

[mmadsen]

Now ability and level draining I hate even more than save or die. A weakness effect halving your damage is far easier to calculate than recalculating all the things on your character sheet affected by strength or removing levels. I could even accept weakness being a more permanent condition than it is in 4e if I don't have to go back to level draining.

Energy drain in 3E isn't really level drain -- until you fail a save later. At first it confers negative levels, which are just -1 penalties to everything. Having them never convert to actual lost levels seems simple enough. And treating them like a disease makes them mechanically and thematically interesting.

 

[Zaukrie]

Who said ban necromancny from the game? I meant you could remove A SPELL or A MONSTER. And perhaps assassins should have the ability to have a save or die, why not?. I am not puttin forward the argument that finger of death should be save or die. What I am saying is DONT totally remove this mechanic from the game because some players don't like dying and want the game play to be super balanced and fair. Leave that kind of coddling for video games, we have DMs who can be nice when it fits the story, and mean when it doesnt.

And if that iconic monster only has save or die rules, it should not be allowed in games that don't like save or die?

Look, we don't agree, but can we do so w/o being passive aggressively insulting in our posts?

 

[Mr. Patient]

So basically the 4E option - Hit: Blah. Failed Save: Suck. or Second Failed Save: Suck.

For the most part, yes, but I'd like the saves and the sucking to be harder (insert joke here). I'd also like the time to be compressed -- I don't want it to take 2+ rounds for the medusa to petrify the PC. Give the PC a few chances to escape it, but all on his turn or within the span of a round or so.

 

[hanez]

I find it interesting that the monster being iconic is important when an element of the way D&D works isn't. But I understand ok you want a medusa, I could accept a 5d10 damage OR Save Fortitude or die, in the stat block or something, definitely not a completely separate module.
I could have removed coddling from the above post, I apologize