Quote from: danbuter;519616At that point, I'd just ignore the lot of them and make a game I liked, and tell the gamers to suck it.

As far as I can tell, that's what Rob Heinsoo did the last time: "My goal designing 4th Edition was to make a game that played the way I thought D&D was going to play, back before I understood the rules. I read about D&D in1974 in Military Modeler magazine and bought the game by mail order. I'd read The Lord of the Rings, but not The Hobbit. I was ten years old and I didn't fully understand the D&D rules for another year or two, but I loved the feel of the game and its fantastic open-ended universe." (from this interview)

That apparently did not work out so well for them.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;519623They already did that last time

Its an approach that might work as long as their taste as a designer isn't sort of weird ...
 
I don't mind the new idea they've proposed. Although I think Tunnels & Trolls did it better 20 years ago; in that physical damage reduces your CON which then lowers your chance of making CON saves.

I was thinking of something similar.  Finger of death might affect a creature as follows:

• 76+ HP: Take 3d6 damage.
• 51-75 HP: Take 3d8 damage.
• 26-50 HP: Take 3d10 damage.
• 25 or less HP: Die.

That system isn't a terrible compromise.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;519496What do you guys think.

I like it.

QuoteI 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.

My recommendation would be that in a non-bloodied state the ability would still deal hit point damage: It's not that the medusa's gaze only works on people who have been hurt, it's that the medusa's gaze isn't an all-or-nothing affair. You get glimpse of her and parts of your skin start to turn hard, rigid, and unresponsive (hit point damage), but it's only after you hit the bloodied condition that additional exposure to the gaze could permanently incapacitate you.

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.

Good way of putting it.

I'm strongly tempted to ditch the save-or-die house rules I've been using since 2005 and use these instead. That's how much I like them. I think it's an elegant concept, I think it's versatile, and I think it's effective.

This is literally the first L&L column I've read where I've been completely enthused by it.

I think some things ought to be save-or-die instantly, and others should depend on hit points or have other mitigating factors. The medusa's gaze is a prime candidate for the first option; poisons (which no edition of D&D has handled very well) are a prime candidate for the second, as are long falls.

It is not a terrible system Mearls proposes, and I would be happy to play with it.

However, it seems to ignore the principle factor underlying why I enjoy save or die mechanics - and that is a methodology to avoid the hit point grind in defeating an opponent/PC.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;519496New 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?

I think you are over-reacting somewhat.  The fact is a lot of people don't care for save-or-die.  I think this is a fairly good compromise; and all it does is really create different levels of intensity of "save or die".

I'm good with it, as long as they don't err too far on the side of caution; with monsters or effects that should have a high mortality rate, they should make sure that the risk is felt.

Of course, I hope also that they redo how they handle some things like poisons; the instant save-or-die poison in all but the deadliest of supernatural creatures, is always something that I've seen as a missed opportunity; its much cooler if you get hit, and you know you're poisoned, and that you're going to have a save-or-die (or a save-or-get-seriously-fucked-up) check sometime soon, but you don't actually know when.   From that moment, the PC is living on borrowed time.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Exploderwizard;519583We get all this shit because whiny pussies take the game far too seriously. So your precious character got bit by a big spider and died, so what? Shit happens.

Play a game in which character creation isn't such a pain in the ass and death won't be either.

Because it bears repeating. And bolded, for my pleasure.

Quote from: danbuter;519616If I was the main guy at WotC and I was reading all the various threads (including this one) on what people think about every little possible change proposed, I'd realize that no matter what WotC does, a good chunk of people are going to be pissed about it. At that point, I'd just ignore the lot of them and make a game I liked, and tell the gamers to suck it.

More importantly, you'd stay quiet and let them keep their precious delusions. Hopefully that'd sell more than a few more at release because anticipation and projected desires will create more word of mouth. It's simple marketing 101: keep yourself alluring (and if talking just creates more acrimony, learn to shut up!).

Link courtesy of TBP:

https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/Wizards_DnD/status/176820442508697600

QuoteRT @mikemearls: @Ettin64 @Wizards_DnD Definitely for [martial classes getting SoD maneuvers], as long as we can hit a sweet spot for SOD

The potential problem I see with this is for spells like flesh to stone--doing hit point damage with a spell like that doesn't feel right to me.  In that case, I might have the duration of the spell be until the the spellcaster dies (so it could theoretically last forever but in practice the effect would end after the encounter).

I like it in concept and voted for it in the poll. But I worry it's too metagamey maybe. I mean how as character would you know when to use such as spell without the player having to track physical conditions to know when it make sense to use "Finger of Death" to match what the setting's and character's expectation of what the spell is supposed to do?

I'd not be disappointed if they grew a set and put them in old school style and say fuck you to the whining pussies that can't deal with "you died, shut up and roll up another character", be a breath of fresh air I think.

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

The term "save-or-die" has been used to collectively refer to a body of abilities which involve removing a character from active play on the basis of a single die roll. Within that collective body of abilities, there are degrees of severity. How devastating a particular save-or-die ability is also largely depends on the level of the PCs. (Getting hit with a petrification effect before you have easy access to the stone to flesh spell is a lot more dangerous than it is after you have easy access to that spell.)

So saying "it's not really save-or-die" is just be perversely obstinate.

Furthermore, in AD&D raise dead is a 5th level spell. Stone to flesh is a 6th level spell. So pretending that petrification is less severe than death in AD&D is, frankly, betraying a deep ignorance of how the game actually plays.

Save-or-petrify is, in fact, much worse than save-or-die.

Quote from: Benoist;519550SOD actually works when (1) you provide means to the PCs to realize there is a SOD situation ahead of them, i.e. they have a chance to know the nature of this threat so they can prepare, strategize, use stuff they've found previously to deal with that threat or avoid it completely, and (2) you provide such means of avoidance so the PCs don't HAVE to confront a SOD situation or stop the adventure dead in its tracks, which means the SOD effect or creature is NOT the center piece of your adventure, that your dungeon layout is NOT linear and that the lair of the Medusa can be avoided in a number of ways, etc.

The usefulness of Mearls' proposed solution is that you don't lose any of this, but you also haven't completely derailed play if the PCs happen to miss the clues or just suffer from some bad luck. IOW, it allows you to keep everything good about SOD (encounters with high risk that encourage you to plan ahead carefully) while jettisoning everything that's bad about them.

On a more general level, the attitude of "just use 'em with care" falls apart once the PCs get access to these abilities. At that point you can either stop using them with care (in which case the solution obviously stops working) or you're left with an uneven field of battle which heavily and completely favors the PCs.

Quote from: Marleycat;519739I like it in concept and voted for it in the poll. But I worry it's too metagamey maybe. I mean how as character would you know when to use such as spell without the player having to track physical conditions to know when it make sense to use "Finger of Death" to match what the setting's and character's expectation of what the spell is supposed to do?

One way to deal with this would be to let the spell deal damage over time: I hit you with a finger of death spell and it begins draining the vitality out of you; you start suffering X amount of damage per round. Once you hit bloodied status, the save-or-die starts getting enforced.

Cap it with "lasts for X number of rounds" (so if they haven't hit that bloodied condition in that time limit the spell simply ends).

This wouldn't be necessary for any ability that can be freely applied round after round (medusa's gaze or a bonus effect from a fighter's class ability).

About the only compromise I would be willing to make on most "save-or-die" effects is that if the being fails its save, the effect "takes effect" immediately (just as it always has) BUT if the situation (combat or otherwise) ends and the character receives "first aid" with the characters CON melee turns, the character is just at 0 hp and unconscious.

For example, if a character is hit by the Finger of Death spell and fails his save, he drops to the ground "apparently dead". This preserves the "speed up combat and avoid time-wasting grind" effect of save or die.  However, if the character hit is able to receive first aid in an out-of-direct-danger environment (that is, not in the middle of combat) within CON melee turns, the character's actual death is prevented -- he's just out of hit points and unconscious.

This would for most death effects like poison, Finger of Death, etc. Turn to Stone and this like would require a bit more thought.