New legends and lore here (has cook's name but in the text says Mearls wrote it):http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120305

What do you guys think.

I have to admit this deflates my interest a bit more. I like save or die effects, and this suggestion of tying them to hp levels seems like it could create a lot of strange scenarios (like a lot of the 4E mechanics). For example why would a medusa's gaze only work on someone with 25 or fewer hp. I may just be grumpy this morning, but to me this resembles the sort of tinkering that created 4e. I also cant help but notice there seems to be a gulf between Mearl's take on save or die as a gamer (it adds excitement and can be managed by good gming) and designer (Bypassing hp is problematic). Am I over-reacting?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;519496I like save or die effects, and this suggestion of tying them to hp levels seems like it could create a lot of strange scenarios (like a lot of the 4E mechanics). For example why would a medusa's gaze only work on someone with 25 or fewer hp.

I suppose the way you could look at it is that being stabbed with a sword *should* be a Save or Die effect, and Hit Points allow you to avoid that. So putting the Medusa's stone gaze on the same mechanic makes sense.

If you look at it as a watered down Power Word Kill (ie effect based on hit points), it doesn't look so bad.

Its tricky.

In a sense a save or die effect already has a built in HP count in as much as it's varied by level and therefore higher level PCs fear it less.

Also from a design perspective the HP threshold puts stout dwarven fighters with high Con at a big advantage over cunning wizards with tiny HPs.

Why would medusa's gaze affect fighters less than wizards ?

So in that example I would go with save or die. But obviously give a bonus to the guy that plans to attack using its reflection in a shield and make the guy that blindfolds himself and uses the blind fighting skill immume. At the end of the day a fight who was unsighted would probably get a -4 penalty (standard for fighting in the dark under the blind figth NWP) a 10th level fighter fighting a medusa would be much better off blindfolding themselves and getting the minus than taking a save or die roll each round.

Ghoul paralysis or Spectre level drain I think should do a minimum ammount of damage to have an effect... so if the ghoul hits for 6 damage save versus paraylsation. Spectres you might trigger on a natural 20 no save.

Poison however I think should do HP damage. I would like to see poison do HP damage per round with a save each round to halve the damage. So if a Big poisonous spider is about it might have a poison that does 1d6+4 damage a round for 5 rounds. Each round you can save for half and if you take the antidote it stops the effect.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;519496I have to admit this deflates my interest a bit more. I like save or die effects, and this suggestion of tying them to hp levels seems like it could create a lot of strange scenarios (like a lot of the 4E mechanics). For example why would a medusa's gaze only work on someone with 25 or fewer hp.

This is just another article from the 5e designers that is reducing my interest in 5e. I would not mind some of these things as an optional alternative to the standard ideas used in D&D before 4e, but if they are the "core" rules, I have no reason to buy 5e.  Changing things that worked well (even if hated by a minority) from 0e through 3.x strikes me as a very bad way to try to get those players back.

For example, I know many people do not like level drains. Nevertheless, level drains are standard in M74. However, I provided an optional rule (a temporary "-1 to everything per level drained") for those who do not want to use level drains.

I'm ignoring these columns because they don't seem very promising. Instead, I'll shut my eyes tight and hope that everything is gonna be OK after all. But the sinking feeling in the pit of the stomach is usually right.

I don't like Save or Die, so I hope it is not in 5e at all. If it must be, the hit point threshold idea is ok.

Quote from: The_Shadow;519503I'm ignoring these columns because they don't seem very promising. Instead, I'll shut my eyes tight and hope that everything is gonna be OK after all. But the sinking feeling in the pit of the stomach is usually right.

My sense is Mearls is just too mired in the 4E mindset, even if he is moving away from explicitly 4E mechanics.

Quote from: jadrax;519498I suppose the way you could look at it is that being stabbed with a sword *should* be a Save or Die effect, and Hit Points allow you to avoid that. So putting the Medusa's stone gaze on the same mechanic makes sense.

That's actually an interesting idea.

Normally there's some handwavy description along the lines of "the majority of HP lost aren't actual damage, but at some point it starts to become damage, and then you die (or get wounded) when you drop below 0". Instead, you could say that HP are specifically luck/stamina whatever, and then show that HP really aren't damage, by saying that dropping below 0 means you must make a save vs death (optionally not failing too badly could lead to an injury). Your constitution affects your HP because fitter people can keep moving for longer, but might also affect your death save because you're tougher and break less easily.

Similarly, falling never made any sense to me solely as a HP loss mechanic, when it should be a save vs death or injury (although you'd still lose HP for falling). Real injuries should take a long time to heal, but HP could recover more quickly (I always found it annoying that early ed characters took so long to recover at 1HP/day when they specifically hadn't taken damage).

I don't necessarily like it, but it would finally make things clear, and I don't think it would add much more complexity -- "you reached 0? Make a fort save, DC based on damage taken".

That column would be more productive rating flower arrangements or beer or...

Quote from: spaceLem;519509That's actually an interesting idea.

Normally there's some handwavy description along the lines of "the majority of HP lost aren't actual damage, but at some point it starts to become damage, and then you die (or get wounded) when you drop below 0". Instead, you could say that HP are specifically luck/stamina whatever, and then show that HP really aren't damage, by saying that dropping below 0 means you must make a save vs death (optionally not failing too badly could lead to an injury). Your constitution affects your HP because fitter people can keep moving for longer, but might also affect your death save because you're tougher and break less easily.

Similarly, falling never made any sense to me solely as a HP loss mechanic, when it should be a save vs death or injury (although you'd still lose HP for falling). Real injuries should take a long time to heal, but HP could recover more quickly (I always found it annoying that early ed characters took so long to recover at 1HP/day when they specifically hadn't taken damage).

I don't necessarily like it, but it would finally make things clear, and I don't think it would add much more complexity -- "you reached 0? Make a fort save, DC based on damage taken".

Rread the hit point thread we were discussing last week.

Quote from: jibbajibba;519512Rread the hit point thread we were discussing last week.

Are you referring to the Alternate methods of AC/HPs in a variant D&D thread? Yes, that does seem like the kind of thing I was talking about (and AoS's handling of the projectiles dilemma in his alternative HP system is quite interesting too).

I could probably live with something like that in D&D.

I don't like that it looks like you need a DDI account to comment on L&L articles. I think the other blogs can be commented on just by joining the forums.

If I were to handle save-or-die in a new and different way, I'd deliberately exploit the bypassing of hp. I'd say save or die with a rolled in secret countdown and some really harsh status effect in the meantime. Clever play can be rewarded on both sides of this mechanic (you can poison someone who can't be helped, or you now have the challenge of rescuing the fighter/wizard/whatever). This is mostly for poison, but I can see it specifically working for the medusa (we've all seen something where a guy turns into stone slowly, and is immobilized in the meantime).

Otherwise, combat is actually made more dull as you have to stand there and hit each other for a while before poison starts working. Which is really weird. It's adding abstraction for reasons that aren't ease of use.

Hmm lets see...

Medusa save or turn to stone...Stone to Flesh
Giant Spider poison save or die...Neutralize Poison or Slow Poison.
Ghoul save or be paralyzed...Remove paralysis

Which of these were save or automatic instant death again, oh yeah NONE OF THEM.

So he starts off by saying how awesome these encounters can be in the hands of a good GM, and then basically says "Oh, but none of our GMs are any good, we bred that out of them." and comes up with more crutches for GMs who don't need them.

You'd better be kicking his ass half for this one Pundit or you forfeit the right to appear as Bill the Butcher.

Quote from: CRKrueger;519530Which of these were save or automatic instant death again, oh yeah NONE OF THEM.

Even death isn't a permanent effect once you get to a level with save or die spells.  That's why save or die isn't as much of a hand wringer for me as it seems to be for some people.