I understand why people might not like save or die, but I think giving warnings beforehand so that players can mitigate needing to make that save by being creative is important to make it feel fun. A mention of the deadly poison the frog people use on their darts, or a warning about not looking into the beast's eyes, and being able to use mirrors, or blindfolds or illusions to help to mitigate the danger.
@@SusCalvin That's not on you and that is how the players learn. Besides unless they all got hit and failed their checks at the same time, what the hell did they stay around for. I would have booked it as soon as I saw what happened to one of my friends, [unless of course, I happened to have a scroll of stone to flesh].
@@jamesrizza2640 Previous victims is a way to announce traps. Some poor wildlife usually wanders into some trap before adventurers. I've had electrified seagulls too.
Excellent analysis- I think the “instant death” of players was an evolution from the war game roots- where masses of “figures” were removed (die) in a dice roll- players had very little stake in their 200 archers rather than their 1 character
4:10 Forget about movies and novels! Even in real life, there are very very few poisons (and fewer venoms) that just kill a person instantly. If you are bitten by a deadly spider or snake IRL, you have anywhere from a few minutes to several hours to do something about it (depending on the species). I think I agree with every point in the video.
And technically speaking even amongst the deadliest naturally occurring poisons and venons are pretty survivable if you get access to some live support. It might take days, but so long as you're kept alive your body will eventually deal with
I've been watching so many of your videos on my brief daily walk every day during the last 2 months, really appreciate your content, both the insightfulness and how 'cozy' it is
I like the approach of 3rd and 3.5 edition. the poison or venom makes abilitie amage. if anyone of your ability scores goes down to 0 you die, and some poisons makes damage to your constitution, so they affect directly your threashold of HP Great video, thx for the advices!
Actually, it was only Constitution that resulted in death at zero. Strength or Dexterity resulted in paralyzation, and Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma resulted in unconsciousness. It WAS cool, in that different attack vectors had different end states. And sometimes the interim steps mattered as well (e.g. lower Strength reducing carrying capacity therefore speed, lower Dexterity making saving throws and armor class lower, other abilities perhaps making higher level spells temporarily uncastable). But anything dealing Constitution damage - poison or otherwise - was a special kind of scary.
I like the way Scarlet Heroes handles "Save or Die", by granting the player a choice between tanking the narrative effects of something or just paying HP to avoid it through the Defy Death mechanic. And since Defy Death will decrease their HP by a variable amount that is increased the more you use it, it is not something players can really abuse or use a safeguard for too long... Despite Scarlet Heroes being meant to make characters feel heroic even at lvl 1, I wonder if this Defy Death mechanic could be borrowed for other OSR systems to provide this level of player choice regarding the matter, though.
The best example of a Director/Writer using Save or Die (with time delay) is the 2nd Indiana Jones movie opening. He drinks a cocktail. It's poisoned - the villain shows him he has the antidote. He's got about 5 rounds to get it! Drama
That is an excellent way to employ it. I had forgotten that scene, but it was still very dramatic and captures essence of what Daniel was talking about.
I think it all starts with the campaign you're running. In my campaign I make it known that there are places a player may go that are deadly. I run a campaign hex crawl, so players know that there can be areas which are hazardous to their health. Furthermore, I provide clues to such a possibility before they actually run into it. I might also point out that some creatures are save vs death like a Medusa. While you can say that you can be turned back at some point, it is damn inconvenient to the rest of party and that is if they survive. I think the answer to this can be four-fold. Either don't use these types of encounters, make them weaker or less effective, or use foreshadowing before the encounter happens. Personally, I think it is a disservice to the players to remove an element of risk to a campaign or adventure. As long as your fair and provide the clues and/or warnings before a campaign and during an adventure, I think it is fine. As the adage goes; Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained or I came, I saw, I conquered. Cheers
My favourite save vs death trap was a plug in the wall, two footprints charred into the floor in front and a crude "KEY CLEANER" carved next to it. It is an electric outlet.
@@BanditsKeep One crew of many did. They even rummaged around for a key to test it with and asked if a nail would fit. But most just had a laugh and walked by. No one has found a use yet.
As a player, I prefer to deal with “save or die” situations by: (1) researching areas before entering them (e.g. asking friendly locals about rumours) and preparing for dangers that adventurers can prepare for (e.g. bring a mirror to fight creatures that can turn enemies to stone) and avoiding areas that adventurers are too weak to face. (2) being very careful to not get into melee combat with creatures that have a poisonous melee attack, e.g. by lifting piles of rags with a 10 foot pole, 1 adventurer open doors while the rest stay at missile range, and the open door character runs back from the doorway immediately after opening the door….
Rather than instant death, really nasty poisons and similar dangers should remove a large percentage of health, like 75%. That way the stakes are still high without just tossing away the character from a bad roll. A level 1 barbarian losing 11 of his 15 HP and a level 20 barbarian losing 150 of his 200 HP are both going to be equally worried about a deadly poison despite how much more HP the high-level barbarian has. You suggestion of a countdown to dropping dead is excellent too. Gives you a small window to save the afflicted person while still keeping the stakes high!
I like to put a sticky note on the character sheet, the player and the character know something is wrong, they got hit by a needle. So no further saves, poison is now killing the character. Every actions I add a line to that sticky note, the character feels stiff, -1 Dexterity. 5 turns maybe to get some kind of antidote/antitoxin, chop off the limb works too, also players can see the sticker and see it filling up quickly or slowly (diseases and such).
@@jamesrizza2640 Yeap they might wonder why they have a red sticker after being bitten by a rat man, then find it more odd when they get Dark Vision they didn't have earlier, and Light sensitivity when the disease spreads to stage 1of ?, but the disease only Grows by 1 a day roughly, so plenty of time to find a cure, or find out they have a time limit of 7 days before their character "dies" and that there should be a cure.
@@SusCalvin Well if I gave them a truly deadly disease, no cure at all (short of a miracle), then I might give them saves just to live a little longer, but that would be cruel to the player I think, only prolonging their character's death with a daily roll.
@justinblocker730 In WFRP you have an extensive list of humiliating diseases and their effects. Including cancer. They can try to treat a lot of the diseases using Renaissance medicine but not all.
in my memory back in early 1980s, the rules as written were ridiculously deadly, and many of us developed extensive homebrew rules. "Save or die" was a top part to be changed, and then rules about healing were next. Otherwise, characters never could do anything fun or advance in levels, because maybe only 1 of every 10 characters could survive a game session, regardless of the character level.
I like save or die for a couple of reasons 1. Is that it makes intuitive sense, if you are bitten by a normal venomous spider in real life you could die (albeit over time which is how I run), now try one the size of a dog. 2. Is it that it reinforces that combat is dangerous, even if you're level 10! In Conan's tower of the elephant Taurus dies to a pig-sized spider, and he was apparently the "Prince of Thrives". Ultimately it's up to each table how to run "save or die", but I'm a big fan
I LOVE the idea of poison causing blindness or inability to move or something. That's brilliant and really encourages player choices moving forward. I have some critters just waiting for that kind of effect.
Thanks! I've been meaning to write down that poison basically works like 0hp in my house rule. That means rolling d6, where 1 means you're fine, 6 means death (final words after the fight), other results fall between those. What I picked in addition from your video is the timer. I'm also using the antidote herbs from Dolmenwood so there needs to be time to apply them.
When poison is used, I also look at the methods people use to cure poison. Which for most of history are not that great. If antidotes and venom serum is available, the PCs need to buy a specific counteragent. The locals will know about common threats. This might give a bonus to saves, allow a second save, downgrade the effect to as if the save was successful etc. A lot of these agents are themselves poisonous. I treat magic as more efficient and powerful. Cure Poison is something you just instantly slap onto a bloke. Same with how Cute Light Wounds just instantly slaps some hp into people.
@BanditsKeep Taking a poison from the dungeon and paying an alchemist to create serum was a nice idea. If a poison is not common, the town might not have it. They might pay for it or offer a free does of serum if you harvest it.
I remember a particularly infamous encounter with Save or Die, where the DM felt they were telegraphing the dangers we were facing, but the players definitely didn't pick up on it. Only 1 party member survived the trap, and despite everyone re-rolling and moving onwards, it was functionally the end of the campaign. Interest died out very quickly after that stunt was pulled. I would heavily caution engaging in the TPK tactics unless you've got a table that really really wants to lean into that level of danger.
I think people have misunderstood how to use save or die as a tool within the game. The purpose of save or die is to kill the characters of players who refuse to learn from their stupid mistakes. A save or die trap should be relatively easy to spot but more of a puzzle than a simple obstacle to overcome. If you're willing to wing it instead of thinking your way through then so be it. A thief studying a treasure chest or a door or something else should be able to discover the poison needle but now has to figure out how they're going to get past it. A thief who just tries to pry the lock off without studying it at all gets what he deserves. A fighter who wades into a spider's nest thinking they're just going to tank all the damage and ends up being bitten dozens of times well then they should die a horrible screaming, painful, instant death. A fighter who sees the signs of a giant spider nest and then decides to figure out some kind of tactical advantage to get rid of the spiders instead of charging in should receive some kind of bonus to their experience. The combat system for Tunnels and Trolls was pretty straightforward with each side just rolling a mass of dice and then whomever rolls higher wins the round. Oftentimes this leaned heavily in the favor of monsters. It openly stated in the rule book that players should come up with clever ways to even the odds. So they should use their own traps and their own geographic advantages or magic or even a simple ambush to gain the upper hand on a numerically superior enemy. Save or die should not be a dick move that dungeon Masters randomly and carelessly throw into their adventures. They should be very deliberately placed to force the players to think their way through a challenge rather than just throwing spells and swinging swords.
Thank you! The classic adventure Tomb of Horrors is chock full of encounters that put the players in save or die situations. Gary Gygax designed it specifically to weed out the "roll players" from the "role players." I've seen videos of 5e players who absolutely hate Tomb of Horrors because they're so accustomed to just rolling dice based on what their character sheet says instead of using their own personal creativity to solve the problems. This is not to say that all 5e players play this way, but that the 5e system encourages that kind of play.
The edition I player (BECMI) a lot of save-or-die monster attacks are delayed, usually be a number of full turns; the cure poison also can revive someone who died of poison if administered withing 10 rounds of death. When using creatures with such attacks I often include some way to gain a cure somewhere in the same dungeon or adventure. Save vs. poison each hour or loose 1 hp, while also being unable to heal (or be healed), was how a handled a deadly curse in my megadungeon -- along with becoming a zombie on death. (There was also a way to break the curse by returning a stolen item, though finding someone who could cast remove curse would also work.)
Great video and a great conversation starter! In my mind, save or die is a hallmark of OSR. Blunting it would take something away from the experience. At the same time, while severe and deadly, every trap should have a way to be avoided. Say the character gets bitten by a venomous spider. They fail their check, but instead of dropping dead, their state worsens by the hour. The character is now on a countdown - the player either has to find some way to neutralize the poison, or their character will succumb and eventually die the next time the party lies down to rest. That way, the danger is still omnipresent, still cruel and mortal. But, again, it leaves the players with some agency, some way out in case the worst happens.
We played that monster poison was save or die. But when the DMG came out we used the poison tables for other poison like on traps, swords and such. We still gave players time to save characters with spells and potions. Otherwise spells like Slow/Neutralize Poison are pretty worthless.
I always like to include a delay between poisoning and effect. It's more realistic, for one thing, and gives that time to react. It's also fun when the player fails a save and the DM just makes a note and says, "OK, then." OK? OK what!?
Love it. Loss of mobility or functionality sounds perfect, attribute reductions certainly work but las you suggest they aren't so much fun. Thanks for sharing.
The Countdown idea is brilliant! I always felt Save or Die was too extreme-except maybe in one-session-only games-and the other solutions have their own problems. The Countdown idea sounds to me like pure gold, because it cues the player of the doomed character to get busy and do something truly dramatic. Only the most incorrigible stick-in-the-mud player will squander the character’s now certainly final moments in the spotlight. 👑
I’ve never played the older versions of DnD, but for a poisoned condition I like to have recurring damage from the poison. They can mitigate it with healing, but they need a cure
My home rule is you have base life at level 0 and gain hit points as you level up. Life is used when you take poison damage. Hit points are for mitigation of melee damage etc. It represents your skill at avoiding damage like a boxer slipping and deflecting punches. Your base life is damage you can withstand while unconscious. A spider bite could be d6; enough to kill you but maybe not. It may be damage over time so a character has a window to cure it before it suffers the full effects. Poison would therefore affect a level 1 and level 20 character the same. Like Li Mu Bai from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. A simple poison dart killed a level 100 warrior.
I like the idea of a slow and steady drain on ability scores. Weak poison may be -2 per day save for -1. Stronger poisons may be per hour or even per round. Also maybe treat it like death saves in 5e - 3 saves in a row and you begin to recover, 3 fails in a row and you die. Some poisons may affect only one ability, some may affect two or more. Surviving a poison may also grant the character limited immunity to that specific poison. Perhaps a big bonus (+5) save vs that type of poison or in 5e advantage on saves vs that type of poison. " Giant spider! Grog you take the lead. your immune to their poison!"
I am pretty sure Mercer used to play old school dnd. His combat might not be that hard but that is more 5e and having a steady cast for the audience to like.@@Bramandin
@@GMandJudge Mercer did play old school dnd, but as someone who has watched over 500 hours of Critical Roll, his campaign style is nothing akin to oldschool. He is polar opposite, even tho he sometimes does pay lip service and seem to have some nostalgia for old school.
My opinion is that in a game where a player controls multiple characters, a save-or-die situation can work well and still be fun and memorable. Playing solo, for example, is a situation where I would definitely use save-or-die rolls... But with only one character, your suggestions make a lot more sense.
If I remember right in BX, slow poison, neutralize poison and antitoxin can be used after a failed save within a certain time limit. Using more ideas like that can keep the danger but make it less annoying and random. I like your idea of giving the player rounds before the poison kills them too- reminds me of the end of the 13th Warrior. That could be really cool and cinematic
totally agree. no matter the system, the whole fun of the game is in the problem solving, so you're better off giving players a problem to solve rather than just going "the dice says you can't play anymore".
I like several of you ideas. I think there are lots of effects that could result from the poision. Some could be interrsting: nausia --> vomits every time hit, halusinations, they could go crazy like a berzerker. Knowing death is coming, Choose to go out with a bang.
I do not use save or die for everything. Ad&d and becmi are often mischaracterized as being overly lethal, but they had a wide variety of poisons available that did different things. Only the most powerful were save or die; ie, giant centipedes from BX just gave you a -4 to hit or save for d6 hours. A thing to think about is the base assumptions of the d&d world in older versions: any spell could be paid to cast if you went to a clerics temple. You needed a few thousand gold to get to level 2 (before 2e gold for exp was the way most people played), and a reincarnation spell only cost a few hundred gold. Life was cheap, in both directions. You died easy, but bobbin the theif could become bobbin the goblin and keep adventuring very easily after meeting his unfortunate end at a poison needle trap. Lastly, the lethal nature of d&d was with the assumption that you were playing in a group of 5-50 players in the same world, probably playing on different days. Your party was not the center of the universe, and the Monday night group might be playing against the goals of the Friday night group. Sometimes you ended up playing an extra in someone else's story because the Wednesday group had the player who would become the dark lord who ended up conquering the map because they played better in pvp and had higher level allies. I say that to give context for save or die mechanics: they make more sense if the players are not assumed to be the only important characters in the world.
I think it makes sense to give the character some time after being poisoned, but it can vary. A poisoned trasure chest was likely poisoned to immediate kill or at least kill before the thief leaves the premises.Animal venom might take till the end of the round. Some early adventures describe when the poison goes into effect
Hey Daniel! Long absence, I apologize. Referring to 5e mechanics because this is what I am using, I like the exhaustion mechanic. The poison slowly affects them as the exhaustion mechanic takes them to eventual death. Otherwise, I agree with you when we use old school.
I did this in 2e, I rolled for a magic item and they got the Scarab of Death. I allowed one round to try and stop it from burrowing into one of the PC’s chest. Through the arm, and they chopped off his arm. This spawned multiple adventures getting a new arm, the new arm was more than it seemed - all generated from a cursed death item that I kind of let them cheat.
Personally , I think Save or Die has a place , but it should be used prudently , and only in special circumstances. You can amp up the stress for players in a lot of other ways , and personally I think that "extension of drama and tension" makes for a really fun game.
Played some OSE where you started back at 1 when you died, it felt like every roll was Save or Die because there was a decent chance that any given enemy would one-shot you - I lost characters without ever rolling dice for them. In THAT context, at least Save or Die gives you a roll I did not really like that campaign
I like save or die if the trap is very telegraphed. But massive dice damage is even more fun. In one of Kelsey’s adventures (hideous halls of Mugdulblub maybe) she had a dagger lying in the middle of a floor. There were blast marks all over the place and several charred skeletons laying around. One of my players’ 1st level characters decided to pick up the dagger. 1D100 damage save for half. Failed the save. Pillar of flame torches him for 71 hit points (his max hp was six). Totally obliterated him. It was a blast, pun not intended. If you’ve ever seen Joe Dirt, it reminded everyone of when Joe shot a bottle rocket at the atomic bomb and Kicking Wing stood there for a second before turning to ash and blowing away. 😂😂😂
I forgot there was a poisonous spider in Castle Caldwell and a player blundered into the room and failed his poison check. By the rules, he had a d6 amount of rounds til death, and he got a 1. Another player had the thought to use a wisdom check for first aid (we do something similar with grumpywizard's death and dismemberment table) and since he succeeded I gave him d6 hours to live instead, and they were able to leave and get to a church for healing
The effects of a poison also really depends on the system you´re playing. For example you could also increase the exhaustion level if you dont make the save or in games like Shadowdark it could reduce the Inventory space by one everytime you fail. But save or die also really depends on the playstyle. Like you said, in OSR-style games it doesnt take that long to bring a new character to the table. In 5e (without online tools like dndbeyond) it takes a lot of time to create a character and people tend to invest more time into backstories, in this case other mechanics are probably more suitable than save or die.
In the middle of nowhere it doesn't matter how long it takes to create a new character. If there is no real logical explanation why that new character is there, then there is going to be one person at the table watching the others play. I mean the "you look trustworthy, would you like to join our quest" is fun but takes away seriousness on a large scale. I once played in a group in which the new character was killed before he could even say a word because people where so paranoid. "He was a prisoner of mind flayers? Just kill him before he does anything funny."
Oh man! I remember that! Death effects and Poison were terrible, although I don't remember ever losing a character to a single save. While I like the concept of ability score damage (especially strength drain), it got really complicated adjusting everything associated with them.
I have always been a fan of "save for half" rather than save or die. That way the damage is always randomized. The countdown effect works well also. I never place instant death situations, (unless the player does something epically stupid).
With save or die being standard in the AD&D rules that I started with I always wondered why the Slow Poison spell existed. I don't think there was a single monster in the MM that had a poison that wasn't instant or a poison trap in a published module that wasn't save or die. At age 10 I didn't make the jump of logic to changing the rules to add in something like a timer on poison, which now I think is a great idea.
Lots of poisons do have an onset time (often rolled for) in AD&D. Telling the player how long they have is not something I've done, though! I might have to try that.
A smart NPC/Monster would have an antidote for any poison that they were using. Just in case they nicked themselves. So the characters might find it if they win the fight and search them.
Unless the character is a Dwarf, poison will have direct effect and the character loses 1 point of health every turn until they die. The character will not die if the save roll is successful.
I like the idea of deadly poisons. Instead of a single save or die I throw 1 hd of damage per level of the victim, so for a level 3 mu is 3d4 damage, for a level 3 fighter 3d8, etc.
Similar to traps, I think a narrative solution to poison/venom sounds fun and would likely be the way I would rule it. Either that or you change it to a save and use the poisons in the book that the players have access to, just rule at the time (or while you make a dungeon/trap) what strength of poison it would be.
I feel the "save or die mechanic" steals drama from the game. I know it is intended to be fear-inducing, but i think that decades of game design and experience have shown you can do that in better ways.
It depends on how you want to play the game. For instance, if you want to have a rogue-like game this kind of thing is perfect. A one shot is also a good time to use it as well. As a GM you are free to increase or decrease the level at any time or point in the game. I find it interesting that you believe that it steals drama from the game. I think it can enhance it, some of the best games I played where when there was a very real risk of death for my character. I respect your opinion however, it depends on what everyone wants to play.
I think for, let's say, a venomous snake bite, I'd make it so that the character has to save or die on a timer. They only have so much time to find an antidote. This could create interesting tension for the party.
@@BanditsKeep better wasn't the right word and i realized that after i posted. But we certainly have more knowledge of potential mechanics and systems than ever and so poison and other deadly mechanics can be build around far more interesting and nuanced systems.
I like the idea of the count down. I stole the "save or die in 1d4 turns" from the Knave 2e spider. I've had multiple players opt to cut off a limb to prevent the death or look into anti-venom during downtime.
It probably works much better at lower levels, where your character is already squishier. By higher levels, it's kinda expected that the kinda of things that can insta-kill a seasoned adventurer are going to be rarer.
to me, it all depends on the style of play (as everything really 😂) - but in an old-school, "hardcore" dungeon crawler I do enjoy a reasonable save-or-die ^^
I don't remember using save or die when I was a player. Stuff like poison wasn't used, I think. I certainly never used anything that was save or die as a dm.
Countdown to death is great. I've been running a lot of DCC lately, and Save or Die in the traditional form works great in funnels for that system; where it can be funny and ridiculous to have the peasants offed in all sorts of outlandish ways, at leveled play I think it is only really appropriate in very specific situations and can almost always be substituted for extremely dangerous but more interesting alternatives (greatly slowed, debilitated, PC taken out for the duration of the encounter / adventure). True Save or Die at higher levels, to me, is only really interesting in a clear "End of the Campaign; One Way of the Other" type of scenario, at which point, sure, no one is going to be put off at that point. But against a random spider in a cave? I don't find it interesting or appropriate.
Definitely a big fan of reducing Con overtime. I don't like the idea of a 10th level anything just getting got right away. However the stronger the poison the more con I take per a save and maybe make the saves more frequent.
I always assume characters have at least time to immediately apply a mundane antidote or Cure Poison, if they can pull it out right then and there in one turn.
@BanditsKeep Mundane antidotes? It depends a lot on setting. A lot of historical cures were just down to wearing magic amulets and hoping. Sometimes they just chomp some early version of active charcoal. If it is available, you can get it in town. It is not as universally effective as magic or as powerful, but also not as expensive. I used the cost of strong poisons to approximate the cost of antidotes. I decided they counteracted specific poisons. The PCs heard a ruin had giant poisonous spiders with paralysis, and asked if a counteragent was available. I knew this monster was very common and even kept in town, and decided that serum against it's poison was probably available. Cute Poison is available as per normal spells. My mates largely use systems where clerics have no healing monopoly.
Those are very good questions you ask. As someone and as a group, that came relatively late to DnD (only in the last couple of decades) i can't say we have played much with the mechanic. However, as a fan of the old editions, i believe i can see both ways. WITH a caveat. I think that the only way the mechanic can be made fun is if the ENTIRE table agrees upon it, the same way it would agree on playing a more deadly OG or early AD&D game, BEFORE actually starting the campaign. In this way, no one should feel cheated by the DM. After all, expectations should be very different if your PC could drop on a fly. Would this lead to an emotional detachment of the player from their PC's? Possibly..... but it may not. It may also lead to some memorable moments. But again, only if that's the consensus of the table from the very start, and that's the setting and the story we want to create.
I've run into a lot of people who feel very strongly that save or die is terrible and they can't imagine why this was ever part of the game. For those people I think it's good to understand the origins of the game in wargaming, where a hero was a unit with extra powers and who got a save to avoid adverse effects. Spider poison would always and instantly kill a normal infantry unit but a hero had a chance to survive it. I've been working through the BK Actual Play series of videos where he's using (modified) Chainmail rules for combat and the combats in these videos have really driven this point home for me. The ghoul rolls a 6 on its d6 attack roll and one of the 1st level players dies. Oh wait, the target was a fighter so he gets a saving throw and survives if he rolls a 1 on a d6. (I don't think any character has made such a save yet in the vids I've watched). It's a very simple system without all of the nuances that you can use in an RPG (hit point damage, stat damage, timers, etc.) but that's where the game originated.
Have you gotten ahold of the new adventures from Jeff Talanian and Hyperborea? Just finished up the written parts of Oblation Slab of the Hepatomancer with a fight with the title caster surprising the party with a spell that was a save or have your guts explode out of your belly and choke you to death, oh how fortuitous the victim made the save.
One thing I've been thinking about doing for poisons in my game is that they do a like a dice of dmg per character level. Based on how bad the poison is. A spider one? Probably a d4, a Purple Worm? d12. So you'd roll the dice and then multiply it by the PC's level. So it's always going to hurt no matter what level they are but also still not be a single oh I failed welp I'm dead.
I'm okay with using save or suck spells. But I'm undecided on save or die spells. I have recently started a new 5e game with my players using the hardcore mode rules. I haven't quite decided if I want to use save or die spells yet.
@BanditsKeep not specifically with the save or die spells. It hasn't come up. I like to introduce new things one at a time in game. So things like hex crawling, survival aspects, needing a light source, etc we can spend some time working out any kinks and getting player feedback. Save or die spells are further down the list of a possibility. But I get what you are going and I think it's a great tip to keep remember.
@ It makes sense to introduce stuff as it comes up for sure, but this type of thing might be a good outside game chat - to prevent having to retcon etc.
I’ve never liked instant death from poison. Poison doesn’t work like that. Even paralytics take a few moments. You don’t need to tell the player they have a countdown, just keep giving them stacking penalties every round. They know what’s happening. They don’t know how long it will take, they don’t know if they will live or die, just like real poison. You as the dm, you roll any saves. The player shouldn’t know. You as the dm should give some shadowing of events to come though. It’s not cool if dms just spring an encounter with save or die mechanics without some sort of fore warning.
The issue with half damage on saves is if the damage is enough to kill your 35hp rogue on a failed save, it will kill your first level fighter on a successful save. Poisoned as a condition, that comes with secondary effects, including lethal ones (damage over time, stat damage, or just drop-dead), is a much better method. If that needle does a d6 up front, save for half, and on a failed save does an additional 2d6 / 6 seconds for 1 minute, that will still serve as a solid equalizer, without instantly deleting a PC. If the needle breaks off and embeds itself in the target, continuing to deliver poison over time, that reduces the number of spells that can help and complicates recovery. Amputation becomes a meaningful option, as does a heroic last stand while your companions flee.
Save or get knocked out for days. The party will either take all your stuff and leave you there naked, or they will carry you and you will be a liability during the next few days, and at the end you might even die on them.
I like the hobbit, didn't the dwarves just get slow and sick from the spider poison? far better to keep playing with an effect on fail. fail forward isn't just my motto, it's my die roll.
This is a tough one. While I understand why people don't like the "save or die" model, there are natural toxins in the real world that will simply kill you. Now, the caveats there are 1) that level of toxicity is rare and 2) most of these sources are well known by locals so they understand how to look for and avoid the dangers. So maybe you only need to have a conversation with the players beforehand that these dangers exist and they should take appropriate precautions. This, of course, still comes back to your point about character creation being simpler and faster in older editions. I like affecting character stats, too, instead of just hit points. But I agree that you don't want to just create another bag of hit points out of the stats. I think something that negatively affects the urgency of poisoning is the ease by which it can be cured via magic. Magic, especially in the latest edition of D&D, just makes the game boring and this isn't any different. So, you end up with poison/venom being a non-threat or absolutely deadly. Clearly, this is a great opportunity for a dedicated system (rule set) to handle poisons, venom, and other toxins.
I like to look up what all other sorts of things poison can do. Does this stuff numb your arm? You take a symbolic amount of damage, but now you can't use that arm for a while. It might target your respiratory system, now you are exhausted for the next week. You're not running, marching with kit is awful.
If you want a 'funnel' style adventure save or die is fantastic. Character death can be really boring for the player who dies unless you have a plan for it (NPCs a player can immediately start playing or new PCs already rolled and ready to go who appear more or less immediately when a PC dies). My favorite for poisoning is needing an antidote before the end of the session or they die, or needing an antidote before the end of the next session if they get poisoned right near the end of a session. Then finding an antidote becomes the key quest the party has to complete. To make it more interesting roll an attribute randomly and any action using that attribute is now at disadvantage for the poisoned PC. Every hour roll for another attribute and that's at disadvantage too. This gives the party the fun of dragging around a PC who can do some things and not others and is deteriorating. This is only appropriate if the party actually cares about the character. Also getting the antidote shouldn't be easy. It should be somewhere that's a real challenge to get to or create some other serious challenge. It could even be a moral problem. Ultimately what I try to shoot for is player agency. Players get to choose what they do and being poisoned can create a fun adventure to get the antidote or the poisoned PC can choose to go down fighting finishing whatever quest they're on.
Players hate the GOT'ing of characters -- I play save or die - but not instant - unless it's obvious -- like squish traps -- poison takes time -- even the most deadly is minutes not seconds -- thus allowing for neutralize or slow poison ..
Personally I think any type of Save or Die, along with Level Drain, are some of the worst, most negative experiences in the game and ones that I'm glad have mostly gone away. Nothing sucks fun out more than being like you need a 15, roll a 14, and it's instant death. While I agree that it's sort of mitigated by the ease of making a character, it's still not fun at all to be instantly killed. I'm reminded of an example in B/X where the thief "Black Dougal" just instantly dies from a poison needle trap by failing the save by like 2 or 3. Reading that (much later, naturally) my first thought was "Wow sucks to be that player"
That is one way to look at it. The other is the character worth dragging half away across the country to bring back to life. Plus with Level Drain they are undead servants now.
To each their own... it really depends a lot on player expectations and what they are looking to get from the game. My players want tension and high challenge, and are totally okay with severe consequences for sketchy choices, and they absolutely expect that low-level characters may die and should not be treated as precious. In contrast, some modern players used to 5e style gaming I know want to play out a certain, somewhat predetermined, character arc and would consider a campaign with more than a couple of character deaths a complete failure on the DMs part. My players would be so bored and that style of game! I LOVE energy drain as long as it is telegraphed... that will create actual fear in your players, it'll make them want to just run away.... which is how you SHOULD feel facing a super scary monster. Unless in your prefer brave heroes that can easily handle the vampire... and that's okay too. While I strongly prefer the former play style, I recognize that these are merely subjective judgments. There is nothing wrong with one approach or the other, as long as people understand what they're getting into and have fun.
If i remember correctly in First edition a slow poison will bring a person killed by poison back to life for the duration of the spell. giving you time to find a permanent cure.
I use stat damage. It makes for better story telling and character development. I don't like binary options like save-or-die, I think it somewhat defeats to purpose of the 'rulings not rules' mentality of OSR games. Too rigid, not enough room for players and DMs to face challenges and tell interesting stories
I play 5e, and venomous creatures seemed to be the only thing less dangerous in DND than in real life 😅. So many people have phobias around spiders and snakes because of venom and the lack of common knowledge over which are venomous and which are not. That said, I would adopt your timer method, feels right! Good homebrew
Yea i like Save or Die for terrible monsters or places that PCs will or should if they do important research understand the risks of, A Dragons Breath or Minotaur charge are things I would warrant make sense and makes their foes far more likely something to avoid or in worse position to try and barter with, helps counter the power fantasy PCs issues that pop up so much in late stages of games.
I understand why people might not like save or die, but I think giving warnings beforehand so that players can mitigate needing to make that save by being creative is important to make it feel fun. A mention of the deadly poison the frog people use on their darts, or a warning about not looking into the beast's eyes, and being able to use mirrors, or blindfolds or illusions to help to mitigate the danger.
@@-_Dragonhead_- I used the "You see statues of startled seagulls" once, but people failed to pick up on it.
@@SusCalvin That's not on you and that is how the players learn. Besides unless they all got hit and failed their checks at the same time, what the hell did they stay around for. I would have booked it as soon as I saw what happened to one of my friends, [unless of course, I happened to have a scroll of stone to flesh].
@@jamesrizza2640 Previous victims is a way to announce traps. Some poor wildlife usually wanders into some trap before adventurers. I've had electrified seagulls too.
Good point, make things much more interesting if they are scared and a bit cautious.
Excellent analysis- I think the “instant death” of players was an evolution from the war game roots- where masses of “figures” were removed (die) in a dice roll- players had very little stake in their 200 archers rather than their 1 character
For sure
4:10
Forget about movies and novels! Even in real life, there are very very few poisons (and fewer venoms) that just kill a person instantly. If you are bitten by a deadly spider or snake IRL, you have anywhere from a few minutes to several hours to do something about it (depending on the species).
I think I agree with every point in the video.
And technically speaking even amongst the deadliest naturally occurring poisons and venons are pretty survivable if you get access to some live support.
It might take days, but so long as you're kept alive your body will eventually deal with
i mean there are snakes where just a drop of their venom can turn a bucketful of blood into an instant pudding. there's no walking that off.
Thanks!
I've been watching so many of your videos on my brief daily walk every day during the last 2 months, really appreciate your content, both the insightfulness and how 'cozy' it is
Thank You!
I like the approach of 3rd and 3.5 edition.
the poison or venom makes abilitie amage. if anyone of your ability scores goes down to 0 you die, and some poisons makes damage to your constitution, so they affect directly your threashold of HP
Great video, thx for the advices!
That is one I like as well.
Actually, it was only Constitution that resulted in death at zero. Strength or Dexterity resulted in paralyzation, and Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma resulted in unconsciousness. It WAS cool, in that different attack vectors had different end states. And sometimes the interim steps mattered as well (e.g. lower Strength reducing carrying capacity therefore speed, lower Dexterity making saving throws and armor class lower, other abilities perhaps making higher level spells temporarily uncastable). But anything dealing Constitution damage - poison or otherwise - was a special kind of scary.
I like the way Scarlet Heroes handles "Save or Die", by granting the player a choice between tanking the narrative effects of something or just paying HP to avoid it through the Defy Death mechanic. And since Defy Death will decrease their HP by a variable amount that is increased the more you use it, it is not something players can really abuse or use a safeguard for too long... Despite Scarlet Heroes being meant to make characters feel heroic even at lvl 1, I wonder if this Defy Death mechanic could be borrowed for other OSR systems to provide this level of player choice regarding the matter, though.
I’ll have look back at that, I played Scarlet Heroes (used the mechanics for 5e) years ago and it was really good.
The best example of a Director/Writer using Save or Die (with time delay) is the 2nd Indiana Jones movie opening. He drinks a cocktail. It's poisoned - the villain shows him he has the antidote. He's got about 5 rounds to get it!
Drama
Ah, yes!
That is an excellent way to employ it. I had forgotten that scene, but it was still very dramatic and captures essence of what Daniel was talking about.
I think it all starts with the campaign you're running. In my campaign I make it known that there are places a player may go that are deadly. I run a campaign hex crawl, so players know that there can be areas which are hazardous to their health. Furthermore, I provide clues to such a possibility before they actually run into it. I might also point out that some creatures are save vs death like a Medusa. While you can say that you can be turned back at some point, it is damn inconvenient to the rest of party and that is if they survive. I think the answer to this can be four-fold. Either don't use these types of encounters, make them weaker or less effective, or use foreshadowing before the encounter happens. Personally, I think it is a disservice to the players to remove an element of risk to a campaign or adventure. As long as your fair and provide the clues and/or warnings before a campaign and during an adventure, I think it is fine. As the adage goes; Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained or I came, I saw, I conquered. Cheers
I’ve had parties carry their “stoned” friend back to be recovered, as you say very inconvenient
My favourite save vs death trap was a plug in the wall, two footprints charred into the floor in front and a crude "KEY CLEANER" carved next to it. It is an electric outlet.
Did anyone fall for that?
Can we use that now to get rid of "intelligence impaired" people? 😂
@@BanditsKeep One crew of many did. They even rummaged around for a key to test it with and asked if a nail would fit. But most just had a laugh and walked by.
No one has found a use yet.
Sounds like something from Gamma World.
@mr.pavone9719 This was a Barsoom techno-dungeon. Everything high-tech looked like a Flash Gordon prop.
As a player, I prefer to deal with “save or die” situations by:
(1) researching areas before entering them (e.g. asking friendly locals about rumours) and preparing for dangers that adventurers can prepare for (e.g. bring a mirror to fight creatures that can turn enemies to stone) and avoiding areas that adventurers are too weak to face.
(2) being very careful to not get into melee combat with creatures that have a poisonous melee attack, e.g. by lifting piles of rags with a 10 foot pole, 1 adventurer open doors while the rest stay at missile range, and the open door character runs back from the doorway immediately after opening the door….
That is OSR thinking, I like it.
This is how us grogs play. In new style games we just look paranoid. Old school gamers know this is just survival
The old saying if you are counting on a die throw for life. You already lost.
Indeed
I have not heard that before but I like it a lot.
I believe it was Conrad from Space Gamer Magazine who used to say that.
Rather than instant death, really nasty poisons and similar dangers should remove a large percentage of health, like 75%. That way the stakes are still high without just tossing away the character from a bad roll. A level 1 barbarian losing 11 of his 15 HP and a level 20 barbarian losing 150 of his 200 HP are both going to be equally worried about a deadly poison despite how much more HP the high-level barbarian has.
You suggestion of a countdown to dropping dead is excellent too. Gives you a small window to save the afflicted person while still keeping the stakes high!
Poisons have onset times in AD&D
@@johngleeman8347 I have read spells, powers and poisons that state "You drop to D6 hp".
I like to put a sticky note on the character sheet, the player and the character know something is wrong, they got hit by a needle.
So no further saves, poison is now killing the character. Every actions I add a line to that sticky note, the character feels stiff, -1 Dexterity.
5 turns maybe to get some kind of antidote/antitoxin, chop off the limb works too, also players can see the sticker and see it filling up quickly or slowly (diseases and such).
I assume the characters have a little time to use Cure Poison or an antidote, if they got it right then and there.
That's not a bad way to do it. Like a reminder, [especially if your in combat, its easy to forget, good for bleed damage too], I like it.
@@jamesrizza2640 Yeap they might wonder why they have a red sticker after being bitten by a rat man, then find it more odd when they get Dark Vision they didn't have earlier, and Light sensitivity when the disease spreads to stage 1of ?, but the disease only Grows by 1 a day roughly, so plenty of time to find a cure, or find out they have a time limit of 7 days before their character "dies" and that there should be a cure.
@@SusCalvin Well if I gave them a truly deadly disease, no cure at all (short of a miracle), then I might give them saves just to live a little longer, but that would be cruel to the player I think, only prolonging their character's death with a daily roll.
@justinblocker730 In WFRP you have an extensive list of humiliating diseases and their effects. Including cancer. They can try to treat a lot of the diseases using Renaissance medicine but not all.
in my memory back in early 1980s, the rules as written were ridiculously deadly, and many of us developed extensive homebrew rules. "Save or die" was a top part to be changed, and then rules about healing were next. Otherwise, characters never could do anything fun or advance in levels, because maybe only 1 of every 10 characters could survive a game session, regardless of the character level.
Exactly. I think people forget (or never played in the 80s). We had tons of house rules. Instant death was one of many. Even Gygax did this.
I like save or die for a couple of reasons
1. Is that it makes intuitive sense, if you are bitten by a normal venomous spider in real life you could die (albeit over time which is how I run), now try one the size of a dog.
2. Is it that it reinforces that combat is dangerous, even if you're level 10! In Conan's tower of the elephant Taurus dies to a pig-sized spider, and he was apparently the "Prince of Thrives".
Ultimately it's up to each table how to run "save or die", but I'm a big fan
I LOVE the idea of poison causing blindness or inability to move or something. That's brilliant and really encourages player choices moving forward. I have some critters just waiting for that kind of effect.
Thanks! I've been meaning to write down that poison basically works like 0hp in my house rule. That means rolling d6, where 1 means you're fine, 6 means death (final words after the fight), other results fall between those. What I picked in addition from your video is the timer. I'm also using the antidote herbs from Dolmenwood so there needs to be time to apply them.
When poison is used, I also look at the methods people use to cure poison. Which for most of history are not that great.
If antidotes and venom serum is available, the PCs need to buy a specific counteragent. The locals will know about common threats.
This might give a bonus to saves, allow a second save, downgrade the effect to as if the save was successful etc. A lot of these agents are themselves poisonous.
I treat magic as more efficient and powerful. Cure Poison is something you just instantly slap onto a bloke. Same with how Cute Light Wounds just instantly slaps some hp into people.
Makes sense
@BanditsKeep Taking a poison from the dungeon and paying an alchemist to create serum was a nice idea. If a poison is not common, the town might not have it. They might pay for it or offer a free does of serum if you harvest it.
I remember a particularly infamous encounter with Save or Die, where the DM felt they were telegraphing the dangers we were facing, but the players definitely didn't pick up on it. Only 1 party member survived the trap, and despite everyone re-rolling and moving onwards, it was functionally the end of the campaign. Interest died out very quickly after that stunt was pulled. I would heavily caution engaging in the TPK tactics unless you've got a table that really really wants to lean into that level of danger.
Indeed.
I think people have misunderstood how to use save or die as a tool within the game. The purpose of save or die is to kill the characters of players who refuse to learn from their stupid mistakes. A save or die trap should be relatively easy to spot but more of a puzzle than a simple obstacle to overcome. If you're willing to wing it instead of thinking your way through then so be it. A thief studying a treasure chest or a door or something else should be able to discover the poison needle but now has to figure out how they're going to get past it. A thief who just tries to pry the lock off without studying it at all gets what he deserves. A fighter who wades into a spider's nest thinking they're just going to tank all the damage and ends up being bitten dozens of times well then they should die a horrible screaming, painful, instant death. A fighter who sees the signs of a giant spider nest and then decides to figure out some kind of tactical advantage to get rid of the spiders instead of charging in should receive some kind of bonus to their experience.
The combat system for Tunnels and Trolls was pretty straightforward with each side just rolling a mass of dice and then whomever rolls higher wins the round. Oftentimes this leaned heavily in the favor of monsters. It openly stated in the rule book that players should come up with clever ways to even the odds. So they should use their own traps and their own geographic advantages or magic or even a simple ambush to gain the upper hand on a numerically superior enemy.
Save or die should not be a dick move that dungeon Masters randomly and carelessly throw into their adventures. They should be very deliberately placed to force the players to think their way through a challenge rather than just throwing spells and swinging swords.
Wow. I never use save or die (I typically roll d8 extra damage per monster hit die) but that's a very insightful and persuasive argument for it.
Thank you! The classic adventure Tomb of Horrors is chock full of encounters that put the players in save or die situations. Gary Gygax designed it specifically to weed out the "roll players" from the "role players." I've seen videos of 5e players who absolutely hate Tomb of Horrors because they're so accustomed to just rolling dice based on what their character sheet says instead of using their own personal creativity to solve the problems. This is not to say that all 5e players play this way, but that the 5e system encourages that kind of play.
The edition I player (BECMI) a lot of save-or-die monster attacks are delayed, usually be a number of full turns; the cure poison also can revive someone who died of poison if administered withing 10 rounds of death. When using creatures with such attacks I often include some way to gain a cure somewhere in the same dungeon or adventure.
Save vs. poison each hour or loose 1 hp, while also being unable to heal (or be healed), was how a handled a deadly curse in my megadungeon -- along with becoming a zombie on death. (There was also a way to break the curse by returning a stolen item, though finding someone who could cast remove curse would also work.)
Most BX poison attacks take multiple turns to kill. A player might run for the exit to get his corpse to the surface, so he's easier to raise!
Great video and a great conversation starter!
In my mind, save or die is a hallmark of OSR. Blunting it would take something away from the experience.
At the same time, while severe and deadly, every trap should have a way to be avoided. Say the character gets bitten by a venomous spider. They fail their check, but instead of dropping dead, their state worsens by the hour. The character is now on a countdown - the player either has to find some way to neutralize the poison, or their character will succumb and eventually die the next time the party lies down to rest.
That way, the danger is still omnipresent, still cruel and mortal. But, again, it leaves the players with some agency, some way out in case the worst happens.
Makes sense
We played that monster poison was save or die. But when the DMG came out we used the poison tables for other poison like on traps, swords and such.
We still gave players time to save characters with spells and potions. Otherwise spells like Slow/Neutralize Poison are pretty worthless.
I always like to include a delay between poisoning and effect. It's more realistic, for one thing, and gives that time to react. It's also fun when the player fails a save and the DM just makes a note and says, "OK, then." OK? OK what!?
Love it. Loss of mobility or functionality sounds perfect, attribute reductions certainly work but las you suggest they aren't so much fun. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you!
The Countdown idea is brilliant! I always felt Save or Die was too extreme-except maybe in one-session-only games-and the other solutions have their own problems. The Countdown idea sounds to me like pure gold, because it cues the player of the doomed character to get busy and do something truly dramatic. Only the most incorrigible stick-in-the-mud player will squander the character’s now certainly final moments in the spotlight. 👑
I know a few of those -
And have been them in the past 😊
I’ve never played the older versions of DnD, but for a poisoned condition I like to have recurring damage from the poison. They can mitigate it with healing, but they need a cure
Final Fantasy Poison Status 👍🤪Love the idea of homebrewing things like that into D&D
I use it at times, not at others. Like the Medusa stare I allow a CON save to avoid looking at her before the STR save to turn to stone.
My home rule is you have base life at level 0 and gain hit points as you level up. Life is used when you take poison damage. Hit points are for mitigation of melee damage etc. It represents your skill at avoiding damage like a boxer slipping and deflecting punches. Your base life is damage you can withstand while unconscious. A spider bite could be d6; enough to kill you but maybe not. It may be damage over time so a character has a window to cure it before it suffers the full effects. Poison would therefore affect a level 1 and level 20 character the same. Like Li Mu Bai from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. A simple poison dart killed a level 100 warrior.
I like the idea of a slow and steady drain on ability scores. Weak poison may be -2 per day save for -1. Stronger poisons may be per hour or even per round. Also maybe treat it like death saves in 5e - 3 saves in a row and you begin to recover, 3 fails in a row and you die. Some poisons may affect only one ability, some may affect two or more. Surviving a poison may also grant the character limited immunity to that specific poison. Perhaps a big bonus (+5) save vs that type of poison or in 5e advantage on saves vs that type of poison.
"
Giant spider! Grog you take the lead. your immune to their poison!"
I like the immunity idea
Great insight about characters back then being quick to make. This is very illuminating as a GM who looks back to old editions with longing.
Why not play them?
My player group is hating on old editions. They are Mercer babies.
I am pretty sure Mercer used to play old school dnd. His combat might not be that hard but that is more 5e and having a steady cast for the audience to like.@@Bramandin
@@GMandJudge Mercer did play old school dnd, but as someone who has watched over 500 hours of Critical Roll, his campaign style is nothing akin to oldschool. He is polar opposite, even tho he sometimes does pay lip service and seem to have some nostalgia for old school.
My opinion is that in a game where a player controls multiple characters, a save-or-die situation can work well and still be fun and memorable. Playing solo, for example, is a situation where I would definitely use save-or-die rolls... But with only one character, your suggestions make a lot more sense.
I think so as well
If I remember right in BX, slow poison, neutralize poison and antitoxin can be used after a failed save within a certain time limit. Using more ideas like that can keep the danger but make it less annoying and random. I like your idea of giving the player rounds before the poison kills them too- reminds me of the end of the 13th Warrior. That could be really cool and cinematic
Indeed
totally agree. no matter the system, the whole fun of the game is in the problem solving, so you're better off giving players a problem to solve rather than just going "the dice says you can't play anymore".
Agreed
I like several of you ideas. I think there are lots of effects that could result from the poision. Some could be interrsting: nausia --> vomits every time hit, halusinations, they could go crazy like a berzerker.
Knowing death is coming, Choose to go out with a bang.
I do not use save or die for everything. Ad&d and becmi are often mischaracterized as being overly lethal, but they had a wide variety of poisons available that did different things. Only the most powerful were save or die; ie, giant centipedes from BX just gave you a -4 to hit or save for d6 hours.
A thing to think about is the base assumptions of the d&d world in older versions: any spell could be paid to cast if you went to a clerics temple. You needed a few thousand gold to get to level 2 (before 2e gold for exp was the way most people played), and a reincarnation spell only cost a few hundred gold. Life was cheap, in both directions. You died easy, but bobbin the theif could become bobbin the goblin and keep adventuring very easily after meeting his unfortunate end at a poison needle trap.
Lastly, the lethal nature of d&d was with the assumption that you were playing in a group of 5-50 players in the same world, probably playing on different days. Your party was not the center of the universe, and the Monday night group might be playing against the goals of the Friday night group. Sometimes you ended up playing an extra in someone else's story because the Wednesday group had the player who would become the dark lord who ended up conquering the map because they played better in pvp and had higher level allies. I say that to give context for save or die mechanics: they make more sense if the players are not assumed to be the only important characters in the world.
Wow. Another great video. Thank you so much.
Thanks!
I think it makes sense to give the character some time after being poisoned, but it can vary. A poisoned trasure chest was likely poisoned to immediate kill or at least kill before the thief leaves the premises.Animal venom might take till the end of the round. Some early adventures describe when the poison goes into effect
Love your stuff, man. Keep it up.
Thank You!
Hey Daniel! Long absence, I apologize. Referring to 5e mechanics because this is what I am using, I like the exhaustion mechanic. The poison slowly affects them as the exhaustion mechanic takes them to eventual death. Otherwise, I agree with you when we use old school.
Ab yes! Exhaustion in 5e is a great idea for poisons.
I did this in 2e, I rolled for a magic item and they got the Scarab of Death. I allowed one round to try and stop it from burrowing into one of the PC’s chest. Through the arm, and they chopped off his arm. This spawned multiple adventures getting a new arm, the new arm was more than it seemed - all generated from a cursed death item that I kind of let them cheat.
Personally , I think Save or Die has a place , but it should be used prudently , and only in special circumstances. You can amp up the stress for players in a lot of other ways , and
personally I think that "extension of drama and tension" makes for a really fun game.
Played some OSE where you started back at 1 when you died, it felt like every roll was Save or Die because there was a decent chance that any given enemy would one-shot you - I lost characters without ever rolling dice for them. In THAT context, at least Save or Die gives you a roll
I did not really like that campaign
Low levels can be rough!
I like save or die if the trap is very telegraphed. But massive dice damage is even more fun. In one of Kelsey’s adventures (hideous halls of Mugdulblub maybe) she had a dagger lying in the middle of a floor. There were blast marks all over the place and several charred skeletons laying around. One of my players’ 1st level characters decided to pick up the dagger. 1D100 damage save for half. Failed the save. Pillar of flame torches him for 71 hit points (his max hp was six). Totally obliterated him. It was a blast, pun not intended. If you’ve ever seen Joe Dirt, it reminded everyone of when Joe shot a bottle rocket at the atomic bomb and Kicking Wing stood there for a second before turning to ash and blowing away. 😂😂😂
I forgot there was a poisonous spider in Castle Caldwell and a player blundered into the room and failed his poison check. By the rules, he had a d6 amount of rounds til death, and he got a 1. Another player had the thought to use a wisdom check for first aid (we do something similar with grumpywizard's death and dismemberment table) and since he succeeded I gave him d6 hours to live instead, and they were able to leave and get to a church for healing
Nice
The effects of a poison also really depends on the system you´re playing. For example you could also increase the exhaustion level if you dont make the save or in games like Shadowdark it could reduce the Inventory space by one everytime you fail.
But save or die also really depends on the playstyle. Like you said, in OSR-style games it doesnt take that long to bring a new character to the table. In 5e (without online tools like dndbeyond) it takes a lot of time to create a character and people tend to invest more time into backstories, in this case other mechanics are probably more suitable than save or die.
In the middle of nowhere it doesn't matter how long it takes to create a new character. If there is no real logical explanation why that new character is there, then there is going to be one person at the table watching the others play. I mean the "you look trustworthy, would you like to join our quest" is fun but takes away seriousness on a large scale. I once played in a group in which the new character was killed before he could even say a word because people where so paranoid. "He was a prisoner of mind flayers? Just kill him before he does anything funny."
That sounds like an issue with the group IMO - it is a game after all. Frequently in fiction we see people join groups - it’s a pretty solid trope
Oh man! I remember that! Death effects and Poison were terrible, although I don't remember ever losing a character to a single save.
While I like the concept of ability score damage (especially strength drain), it got really complicated adjusting everything associated with them.
True especially mid-combat
I have always been a fan of "save for half" rather than save or die. That way the damage is always randomized. The countdown effect works well also. I never place instant death situations, (unless the player does something epically stupid).
I run an old school home brew. For poison I have it deal damage on a failed save, 1d6 per HD of the monster who caused it.
With save or die being standard in the AD&D rules that I started with I always wondered why the Slow Poison spell existed. I don't think there was a single monster in the MM that had a poison that wasn't instant or a poison trap in a published module that wasn't save or die. At age 10 I didn't make the jump of logic to changing the rules to add in something like a timer on poison, which now I think is a great idea.
Yeah, I believe the spell is supposed to “bring them back” if I’m not mistaken but it’s been a while since I’ve looked at AD&D
I haven’t used save or die mechanisms quite yet! Seems like best implemented on boss creatures?
Makes sense
Lots of poisons do have an onset time (often rolled for) in AD&D. Telling the player how long they have is not something I've done, though! I might have to try that.
A smart NPC/Monster would have an antidote for any poison that they were using. Just in case they nicked themselves. So the characters might find it if they win the fight and search them.
Unless the character is a Dwarf, poison will have direct effect and the character loses 1 point of health every turn until they die. The character will not die if the save roll is successful.
I like the idea of deadly poisons. Instead of a single save or die I throw 1 hd of damage per level of the victim, so for a level 3 mu is 3d4 damage, for a level 3 fighter 3d8, etc.
Nice
I hate Save or Die. But I LOVE ALL Bandit's Keep videos!
Nice
thank you!
You're welcome!
Similar to traps, I think a narrative solution to poison/venom sounds fun and would likely be the way I would rule it. Either that or you change it to a save and use the poisons in the book that the players have access to, just rule at the time (or while you make a dungeon/trap) what strength of poison it would be.
This is a great channel.
Thank You!
I feel the "save or die mechanic" steals drama from the game. I know it is intended to be fear-inducing, but i think that decades of game design and experience have shown you can do that in better ways.
It depends on how you want to play the game. For instance, if you want to have a rogue-like game this kind of thing is perfect. A one shot is also a good time to use it as well. As a GM you are free to increase or decrease the level at any time or point in the game. I find it interesting that you believe that it steals drama from the game. I think it can enhance it, some of the best games I played where when there was a very real risk of death for my character. I respect your opinion however, it depends on what everyone wants to play.
Not sure “better” is a term I’d use. Different ways for sure
I think for, let's say, a venomous snake bite, I'd make it so that the character has to save or die on a timer. They only have so much time to find an antidote. This could create interesting tension for the party.
@@BanditsKeep better wasn't the right word and i realized that after i posted. But we certainly have more knowledge of potential mechanics and systems than ever and so poison and other deadly mechanics can be build around far more interesting and nuanced systems.
I like the idea of the count down. I stole the "save or die in 1d4 turns" from the Knave 2e spider. I've had multiple players opt to cut off a limb to prevent the death or look into anti-venom during downtime.
Nice!
It probably works much better at lower levels, where your character is already squishier. By higher levels, it's kinda expected that the kinda of things that can insta-kill a seasoned adventurer are going to be rarer.
Indeed
Used sparingly it can add real tension. IMO it works best if they know the creature has this power.
True
Good Advice!
Thank You!
0:22 seriously! What are there so many adventures with a single spider just tucked away in a room somewhere?
I’m guessing Tower of the Elephant
to me, it all depends on the style of play (as everything really 😂) - but in an old-school, "hardcore" dungeon crawler I do enjoy a reasonable save-or-die ^^
Cool
I don't remember using save or die when I was a player. Stuff like poison wasn't used, I think. I certainly never used anything that was save or die as a dm.
Countdown to death is great. I've been running a lot of DCC lately, and Save or Die in the traditional form works great in funnels for that system; where it can be funny and ridiculous to have the peasants offed in all sorts of outlandish ways, at leveled play I think it is only really appropriate in very specific situations and can almost always be substituted for extremely dangerous but more interesting alternatives (greatly slowed, debilitated, PC taken out for the duration of the encounter / adventure).
True Save or Die at higher levels, to me, is only really interesting in a clear "End of the Campaign; One Way of the Other" type of scenario, at which point, sure, no one is going to be put off at that point. But against a random spider in a cave? I don't find it interesting or appropriate.
I definitely see ability scores as a resource
Cool
Definitely a big fan of reducing Con overtime. I don't like the idea of a 10th level anything just getting got right away. However the stronger the poison the more con I take per a save and maybe make the saves more frequent.
Makes sense
I always assume characters have at least time to immediately apply a mundane antidote or Cure Poison, if they can pull it out right then and there in one turn.
Is this something they can buy?
@BanditsKeep Mundane antidotes? It depends a lot on setting. A lot of historical cures were just down to wearing magic amulets and hoping. Sometimes they just chomp some early version of active charcoal.
If it is available, you can get it in town. It is not as universally effective as magic or as powerful, but also not as expensive. I used the cost of strong poisons to approximate the cost of antidotes. I decided they counteracted specific poisons. The PCs heard a ruin had giant poisonous spiders with paralysis, and asked if a counteragent was available. I knew this monster was very common and even kept in town, and decided that serum against it's poison was probably available.
Cute Poison is available as per normal spells. My mates largely use systems where clerics have no healing monopoly.
Those are very good questions you ask. As someone and as a group, that came relatively late to DnD (only in the last couple of decades) i can't say we have played much with the mechanic. However, as a fan of the old editions, i believe i can see both ways. WITH a caveat. I think that the only way the mechanic can be made fun is if the ENTIRE table agrees upon it, the same way it would agree on playing a more deadly OG or early AD&D game, BEFORE actually starting the campaign. In this way, no one should feel cheated by the DM. After all, expectations should be very different if your PC could drop on a fly. Would this lead to an emotional detachment of the player from their PC's? Possibly..... but it may not. It may also lead to some memorable moments. But again, only if that's the consensus of the table from the very start, and that's the setting and the story we want to create.
I've run into a lot of people who feel very strongly that save or die is terrible and they can't imagine why this was ever part of the game. For those people I think it's good to understand the origins of the game in wargaming, where a hero was a unit with extra powers and who got a save to avoid adverse effects. Spider poison would always and instantly kill a normal infantry unit but a hero had a chance to survive it. I've been working through the BK Actual Play series of videos where he's using (modified) Chainmail rules for combat and the combats in these videos have really driven this point home for me. The ghoul rolls a 6 on its d6 attack roll and one of the 1st level players dies. Oh wait, the target was a fighter so he gets a saving throw and survives if he rolls a 1 on a d6. (I don't think any character has made such a save yet in the vids I've watched). It's a very simple system without all of the nuances that you can use in an RPG (hit point damage, stat damage, timers, etc.) but that's where the game originated.
For sure
Also worth noting shelob doesn't kill .. they are paralysed to save for later.
Nice, I hadn’t thought of that
Have you gotten ahold of the new adventures from Jeff Talanian and Hyperborea? Just finished up the written parts of Oblation Slab of the Hepatomancer with a fight with the title caster surprising the party with a spell that was a save or have your guts explode out of your belly and choke you to death, oh how fortuitous the victim made the save.
I had not, sounds fun though!
I basically always have multiple levels or chances of success or failure. All of which have different degrees of success or failure.
Cool
One thing I've been thinking about doing for poisons in my game is that they do a like a dice of dmg per character level. Based on how bad the poison is. A spider one? Probably a d4, a Purple Worm? d12. So you'd roll the dice and then multiply it by the PC's level. So it's always going to hurt no matter what level they are but also still not be a single oh I failed welp I'm dead.
Unless they roll high!
I'm okay with using save or suck spells. But I'm undecided on save or die spells.
I have recently started a new 5e game with my players using the hardcore mode rules. I haven't quite decided if I want to use save or die spells yet.
Have you asked the players what they think?
@BanditsKeep not specifically with the save or die spells. It hasn't come up.
I like to introduce new things one at a time in game. So things like hex crawling, survival aspects, needing a light source, etc we can spend some time working out any kinks and getting player feedback. Save or die spells are further down the list of a possibility.
But I get what you are going and I think it's a great tip to keep remember.
@ It makes sense to introduce stuff as it comes up for sure, but this type of thing might be a good outside game chat - to prevent having to retcon etc.
I only just realized you have storm shutters *inside* your home.
It gets stormy here!
Good video. Interesting.
Thank You!
I’ve never liked instant death from poison. Poison doesn’t work like that. Even paralytics take a few moments. You don’t need to tell the player they have a countdown, just keep giving them stacking penalties every round. They know what’s happening. They don’t know how long it will take, they don’t know if they will live or die, just like real poison. You as the dm, you roll any saves. The player shouldn’t know. You as the dm should give some shadowing of events to come though. It’s not cool if dms just spring an encounter with save or die mechanics without some sort of fore warning.
Nice Mars Attacks thumbnail
The issue with half damage on saves is if the damage is enough to kill your 35hp rogue on a failed save, it will kill your first level fighter on a successful save. Poisoned as a condition, that comes with secondary effects, including lethal ones (damage over time, stat damage, or just drop-dead), is a much better method. If that needle does a d6 up front, save for half, and on a failed save does an additional 2d6 / 6 seconds for 1 minute, that will still serve as a solid equalizer, without instantly deleting a PC. If the needle breaks off and embeds itself in the target, continuing to deliver poison over time, that reduces the number of spells that can help and complicates recovery. Amputation becomes a meaningful option, as does a heroic last stand while your companions flee.
Save or DIE! I'm rolling 20s like a 60 Impala. AC doesnt mattuh; critical damage from my war hammer!
🔨
Save or get knocked out for days. The party will either take all your stuff and leave you there naked, or they will carry you and you will be a liability during the next few days, and at the end you might even die on them.
That usually means retreating out, leaving knocked out or injured people at base camp and regrouping with secondary PCs.
I like the hobbit, didn't the dwarves just get slow and sick from the spider poison? far better to keep playing with an effect on fail.
fail forward isn't just my motto, it's my die roll.
Oh, man. You should borrow Prof Dungeon Master +1 Vest of Protection for this subject 😄
Ha ha, true!
This is a tough one. While I understand why people don't like the "save or die" model, there are natural toxins in the real world that will simply kill you. Now, the caveats there are 1) that level of toxicity is rare and 2) most of these sources are well known by locals so they understand how to look for and avoid the dangers. So maybe you only need to have a conversation with the players beforehand that these dangers exist and they should take appropriate precautions. This, of course, still comes back to your point about character creation being simpler and faster in older editions.
I like affecting character stats, too, instead of just hit points. But I agree that you don't want to just create another bag of hit points out of the stats.
I think something that negatively affects the urgency of poisoning is the ease by which it can be cured via magic. Magic, especially in the latest edition of D&D, just makes the game boring and this isn't any different. So, you end up with poison/venom being a non-threat or absolutely deadly.
Clearly, this is a great opportunity for a dedicated system (rule set) to handle poisons, venom, and other toxins.
I like to look up what all other sorts of things poison can do.
Does this stuff numb your arm? You take a symbolic amount of damage, but now you can't use that arm for a while.
It might target your respiratory system, now you are exhausted for the next week. You're not running, marching with kit is awful.
If you want a 'funnel' style adventure save or die is fantastic. Character death can be really boring for the player who dies unless you have a plan for it (NPCs a player can immediately start playing or new PCs already rolled and ready to go who appear more or less immediately when a PC dies).
My favorite for poisoning is needing an antidote before the end of the session or they die, or needing an antidote before the end of the next session if they get poisoned right near the end of a session. Then finding an antidote becomes the key quest the party has to complete.
To make it more interesting roll an attribute randomly and any action using that attribute is now at disadvantage for the poisoned PC. Every hour roll for another attribute and that's at disadvantage too. This gives the party the fun of dragging around a PC who can do some things and not others and is deteriorating.
This is only appropriate if the party actually cares about the character. Also getting the antidote shouldn't be easy. It should be somewhere that's a real challenge to get to or create some other serious challenge. It could even be a moral problem.
Ultimately what I try to shoot for is player agency. Players get to choose what they do and being poisoned can create a fun adventure to get the antidote or the poisoned PC can choose to go down fighting finishing whatever quest they're on.
how about hit point damage x character level?
Could work for sure
Well to be as simple as possible.....there arw different types of poison.
Indeed
Some systems like Arduin were much more dangerous, even if you did save!
Oh? I haven’t read that one
Players hate the GOT'ing of characters -- I play save or die - but not instant - unless it's obvious -- like squish traps -- poison takes time -- even the most deadly is minutes not seconds -- thus allowing for neutralize or slow poison ..
Personally I think any type of Save or Die, along with Level Drain, are some of the worst, most negative experiences in the game and ones that I'm glad have mostly gone away. Nothing sucks fun out more than being like you need a 15, roll a 14, and it's instant death. While I agree that it's sort of mitigated by the ease of making a character, it's still not fun at all to be instantly killed. I'm reminded of an example in B/X where the thief "Black Dougal" just instantly dies from a poison needle trap by failing the save by like 2 or 3. Reading that (much later, naturally) my first thought was "Wow sucks to be that player"
That is one way to look at it. The other is the character worth dragging half away across the country to bring back to life. Plus with Level Drain they are undead servants now.
To each their own... it really depends a lot on player expectations and what they are looking to get from the game. My players want tension and high challenge, and are totally okay with severe consequences for sketchy choices, and they absolutely expect that low-level characters may die and should not be treated as precious. In contrast, some modern players used to 5e style gaming I know want to play out a certain, somewhat predetermined, character arc and would consider a campaign with more than a couple of character deaths a complete failure on the DMs part. My players would be so bored and that style of game!
I LOVE energy drain as long as it is telegraphed... that will create actual fear in your players, it'll make them want to just run away.... which is how you SHOULD feel facing a super scary monster. Unless in your prefer brave heroes that can easily handle the vampire... and that's okay too.
While I strongly prefer the former play style, I recognize that these are merely subjective judgments. There is nothing wrong with one approach or the other, as long as people understand what they're getting into and have fun.
A warning to all those who play thieves (like me as a kid) 😊
If i remember correctly in First edition a slow poison will bring a person killed by poison back to life for the duration of the spell. giving you time to find a permanent cure.
Interesting
I use stat damage. It makes for better story telling and character development. I don't like binary options like save-or-die, I think it somewhat defeats to purpose of the 'rulings not rules' mentality of OSR games. Too rigid, not enough room for players and DMs to face challenges and tell interesting stories
Indeed - do you have death at zero HP? Or another mechanic like scars etc
This comment was poison click like or die.
I shall click!
I play 5e, and venomous creatures seemed to be the only thing less dangerous in DND than in real life 😅. So many people have phobias around spiders and snakes because of venom and the lack of common knowledge over which are venomous and which are not. That said, I would adopt your timer method, feels right! Good homebrew
Thanks!
Yea i like Save or Die for terrible monsters or places that PCs will or should if they do important research understand the risks of, A Dragons Breath or Minotaur charge are things I would warrant make sense and makes their foes far more likely something to avoid or in worse position to try and barter with, helps counter the power fantasy PCs issues that pop up so much in late stages of games.