What is the point of SoDs? Why are they needed? What could take their place?

[SorO_Lost]

You might have a high save (or even an 'auto-success' buff) but even that can be overwhelmed given enough debuffs and conditional penalties.

But that's how the game already works without any need for complicated or ill-thought out rules.

Spellcasters can learn a wide range of Spells, even the Sorcerer can afford to learn alternatives like a Sleep & Color Spray or Web & Glitterdust. But more importantly is that they pay a debuff of versatility to overwhelm targets that may be immune to one of their choices. They can even use conditional modifiers, like Energy Substitution or Searing Spell, to bypass stuff like immunity to Fire or simply rely on buff/debuff effects to compensate for immunities, like using Golem Strike to Sneak Attack Undead.

Also you're forgetting the generational gap. The creator, and his crew, ran some very deadly games because that was what was fun to them. The lethality built into D&D, such as cats killing commoners or Wolves murdering 1st level Fighters, Massive Damage, SoDs, Spheres of Annihilation, are intended. Some of the most powerful effects in the game, like wish or Ice Assassin, are designed to make you question using them and them rationing out rather then spamming them as your solution to everything because you're not supposed to have easy answers.

This also has a lends to the social dynamic. Without character death you won't make a new one and so you lose out on several opportunities to pretend to live out new lives from new prospectives and mesh them against other characters being roleplayed on the tabletop. Certain games are even designed to capitalize on this. Like Hackmaster is known for it's very detailed, and randomized, character creation is specifically designed to break the player out of his predetermined mold and try something new.

But like colleges & campuses everywhere. It's no longer about testing new ideas and learning from them but the suppression of dissenting opinions. Newer generations cannot stand to lose or be wrong about anything so no character deaths ever and "DMs" often dismiss anything that disagrees with them like some kind of tyrant that decides what is acceptable or not. Like take any Alignment or Code of Conduct discussion, no one wants to learn how to run a character with certain behavior traits, they just want to argue about how useless the subject is until everyone stops talking about it. As a result no one is testing their concept of morality or hearing opinions on it, rather they all mutually agree they know already know what's best and the other guy is a hateful bigot that could never learn the right way of doing things.

And I feel like I've ran off on yet another SorO rant about how you kids need to grow the heck up. Where was my addled brain wanting to go again? Oh yeah, 5th Edition. Why limit your self to 3.5 if you're just going to complain that it needs you to make it right. You should consider all the optional available and try to grasp the full picture of them. Maybe 5th already fixed SoDs like you want, maybe the 3.5 already handles SoDs like you want but you were looking at things from the wrong angle, maybe SorO has a point that D&D may not even be the tabletop game you want to play and hopefully someone in the community can point you to one you'd like. Because pragmatically, why invest a ton of effort fixing something when there is already something that works?

[RedWarlock]

Because I'm not just fixing SoDs, the system I'm building isn't about that. This is about character power-source/power-usage distribution. The SoD analysis is more of a side-point.

I'm building a system because no game I've seen does what I want with character progression systems, and I want to encapsulate my goals and ideas in a new system that matches it. Since my homebrew system has some commonalities with 3e/4e/5e, I'm using that metagame structure as a point of analysis for what benchmarks/pitfalls I can shoot for or avoid, with my own defense/condition structures.

I'm trying to figure out why the 3e structure (which had the most evolved structure for a complex system) worked as it did, and why the elements I disliked made me react that way, so I can find a solution that better matches my own intent and desires. If playing 5e was the answer, believe me, I would've dropped this long ago, but 5e is even worse than 3e in the things I want to be able to do.

[SorO_Lost]

I'm building a system because no game I've seen does what I want with character progression systems, and I want to encapsulate my goals and ideas in a new system that matches it.

Ahh, ok. Ambiguous through.

I'm trying to figure out why the 3e structure (which had the most evolved structure for a complex system) worked as it did, and why the elements I disliked made me react that way, so I can find a solution that better matches my own intent and desires. If playing 5e was the answer, believe me, I would've dropped this long ago, but 5e is even worse than 3e in the things I want to be able to do.

I can't say to much on none-D&D systems since my experience with them are pretty limited (and subsequently flipped to 'that game like D&D but different dice') but looking at the Editions it becomes clear it's the balance of elements.

Chainmail, D&D, Advanced D&D, they caught the world in an age of imagination as intellectuals, "nerds", became a thing. The rules are loose and allow you freedom a character who can outscale entire types of creatures. When 4th came out it was trying to be an MMO on the tabletop while 5th tried to return to 3rd's roots it's still primarily designed to be a pure rule based abstraction of simulation. Little to nothing supports actually acting your characters out or solving day-to-day problems.

3rd was the balancing point between the two. It wanted to simulate a fantasy life and only relayed on certain abstractions to make play easier when it needed to. Each Race and Class were given the room to have lengthy descriptions, several Feats & Spells were created for no other reason than "out-of-combat" purposes. 3rd also embraced selling out so you had entire books dedicated to life in the desert, or in cold mountains, or at sea, or in a city-nation. Comparing 3rd to 5th is like comparing Doom to Halo or Driver to Saints Row 2, 5th could probably handle something but 3rd was like flanking & the high ground, have some bonuses dude. It's also wrong enough to stimulate chat about how broken it is which capitalizes on your typical teenager's desire to tell someone they are right about something.

But like take SoDs, you don't like them. But maybe your real life character trait is akin to an antivaxxer who thinks police shouldn't be armed. But D&D has the mechanic, and several others that apply, and it forces you to face people who do not subscribe to your ideology of how combat should go. Your character, and by extension you, become forced to question your stance on the subject and how you will resolve the issue. Will you remain firm and resolve to never use them or will you come to say it was a mistake and adapt? In game will you herald a new nation that burns books with those spells so no one has them or will you find some way to compromise? It's not really all that different from many of the issues your local community, state, or country face, just with a different coat of paint. And because of this a game of 3rd Edition is almost always educational material on social interaction, so long as you're answer to everything isn't houserules with like-minded friends only. It was the nerd version of Scouting and Church programs before arguing over the Internet was the thing to do.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

if your caster is blowing his highest level Slots on Finger of Death to try and kill one enemy at a time per Slot then he's wasting his Slots to begin with.

I agree with this.

Still, the question becomes how to deal with the 5 minute work day when casters nova on the first encounter every day. Combat becomes trivial because casters who have winning save DCs just plain win when equipped with a decent SoD (unless the DM mysteriously makes all the monsters immune to that SoD...). Sure you can run 20 monster encounters all the time, but that stretches the imagination and time limits.

Some of the most powerful effects in the game, like wish or Ice Assassin, are designed to make you question using them and them rationing out rather then spamming them as your solution to everything because you're not supposed to have easy answers

You are right that the game would be better without them.

But like colleges & campuses everywhere. It's no longer about testing new ideas and learning from them but the suppression of dissenting opinions. Newer generations cannot stand to lose or be wrong about anything so no character deaths ever and "DMs" often dismiss anything that disagrees with them like some kind of tyrant that decides what is acceptable or not.

So true. But I never understood alignment threads. Alignments aren't rocket science.

why invest a ton of effort fixing something when there is already something that works?

So the solution was to go with 5e-style no SoD's? I think that's what everyone was saying. I was actually giving less compromise because I don't find immunity investment by PCs a problem. Also 5e still has turning people into a harmless sheep and gutting them, it seems. Because turning (people) into a sheep is fun. 

[RedWarlock]

I'm building a system because no game I've seen does what I want with character progression systems, and I want to encapsulate my goals and ideas in a new system that matches it.

Ahh, ok. Ambiguous through.

I'm ambiguous because it's off-topic from what we're discussing.

(click to show/hide)

The short version is that I'm building a system that breaks power-sets into distinct paths with unique mechanics (blaster, summoner, healer, aura-user, brawler, etc) of a tier-4/5-ish level each, but can be leveled up evenly to combine into a more in-depth (tier 3ish) character, or you can focus on a single path that reaches a higher level-potential (with stronger powers) at the expense of flexibility. Each path uses an independent XP cost that increases with level (so 1st always costs 100, 2nd is 200, 3rd is 300, etc).

The powers are also constructed so that you can dabble outside your path-focus, but the path's benefits boost those powers' effectiveness. There's also a flatter progression that keeps low and high-level characters (and their rewards/equipment) closer together, as well as keeping monsters/NPCs relevant for longer stretches. I also use the heavy-grid-based 4e-style tactical combat, as well as the minion-control action-economy, where summons and minions are controlled by spending the player's actions, with abstraction mechanics (when controlling more than a few) similar to auras and swarms rather than a bunch of minis on the field.

The system uses an entirely separate progression and XP system for non-combat/grid-based play. You can have a character who invests minimally in combat mechanics, but heavily invests in social and financial mechanics, if so desired. (The system basically balances out superior gear by treating it as basically a LA to one's effective path level, instead of using an expected wealth-by-level. Like 3e, mundane and magic items are all built from components which correspond to combat maneuvers and powers.)

[Maelphaxerazz]

I have no problem with players characters dying, but I think it should require more than one die-roll to kill off a player or major enemy. That's my main problem with SoDs as they stand.

Just how many die rolls is sufficient, then?

An orc attacks you with a greataxe, rolls 20, critical hit! Roll to confirm, hit on the critical. Roll for damage, (12+5)x3=51. If that does not kill you outright, you now must save vs Massive Damage or die.

On one hand, that is multiple rolls (attack roll, confirmation roll, damage roll, and maybe a Fortitude saving throw). On the other hand, from the player's perspective, it is still all one attack, and thus faces the same consequence as the save-or-die: the player has no time to react. And while individual attacks have less %chance of death than individual spells, there are many more of them, and thus any time combat starts you know that this turn may be your character's last. Sudden death is part of the game, not just in spells but in every part: you can suddenly die to a trap, to an attack, and even to natural forces. D&D is the story of an entire adventuring group and its adventures, not of an individual and his adventures. The characters' surprise deaths add another layer to the game, where you can never know if your strategically-put-together dungeon delving warband will actually make it in its original form to its stated enemy, and must recruit warriors along the way.

[Raineh Daze]

I have no problem with players characters dying, but I think it should require more than one die-roll to kill off a player or major enemy. That's my main problem with SoDs as they stand.

Just how many die rolls is sufficient, then?

An orc attacks you with a greataxe, rolls 20, critical hit! Roll to confirm, hit on the critical. Roll for damage, (12+5)x3=51. If that does not kill you outright, you now must save vs Massive Damage or die.

On one hand, that is multiple rolls (attack roll, confirmation roll, damage roll, and maybe a Fortitude saving throw). On the other hand, from the player's perspective, it is still all one attack, and thus faces the same consequence as the save-or-die: the player has no time to react. And while individual attacks have less %chance of death than individual spells, there are many more of them, and thus any time combat starts you know that this turn may be your character's last. Sudden death is part of the game, not just in spells but in every part: you can suddenly die to a trap, to an attack, and even to natural forces. D&D is the story of an entire adventuring group and its adventures, not of an individual and his adventures. The characters' surprise deaths add another layer to the game, where you can never know if your strategically-put-together dungeon delving warband will actually make it in its original form to its stated enemy, and must recruit warriors along the way.

Minor point: a critical hit requires you to make the damage roll multiple times and add the result. An orc getting a nat 20, confirming, then rolling 12 12 11/12 would actually be quite funny, if annoying.

Though it's a false equivalence between SoDs and attack damage--one has a single binary outcome (and of course there are those with only a partial save to make it worse) whilst the other has a second layer of defence and a small cushion below 0 HP where you're still out of it but not instantly dead.

And actually, if you go through the first two pages, you can sort of come across an issue with SoD's--if the PC's can use them reliably, combat ends quickly. If the NPC's can use them with regularity, you get a lot of immunity stacking or a potentially high rate of PC churn (or resurrection spam).

But like take SoDs, you don't like them. But maybe your real life character trait is akin to an antivaxxer who thinks police shouldn't be armed. But D&D has the mechanic, and several others that apply, and it forces you to face people who do not subscribe to your ideology of how combat should go. Your character, and by extension you, become forced to question your stance on the subject and how you will resolve the issue. Will you remain firm and resolve to never use them or will you come to say it was a mistake and adapt? In game will you herald a new nation that burns books with those spells so no one has them or will you find some way to compromise? It's not really all that different from many of the issues your local community, state, or country face, just with a different coat of paint. And because of this a game of 3rd Edition is almost always educational material on social interaction, so long as you're answer to everything isn't houserules with like-minded friends only. It was the nerd version of Scouting and Church programs before arguing over the Internet was the thing to do.

The difference between D&D and real life is we can take SoDs out of the game or reduce them, we can't do that with diseases in real life (well, not effectively). When it reaches the point where everyone is taking immunities in the game because of SoDs, you'd get the same result and free up resources to go do something else without the SoDs. Unless someone is planning on deliberately turning themselves into the enemies' whipping horse, you'll get the same effect defensively--possibly with more use for the non-instakill spells now that they're not also being completely negated by the SoD-blocking.

[SorO_Lost]

When it reaches the point where everyone is taking immunities in the game because of SoDs, you'd get the same result and free up resources to go do something else without the SoDs.

Not really. Something something...

false equivalence

As you pointed out, those immunities cost resources. Resources that many creatures simply do not get and many low level Class-Progressed creatures can't afford. Mass or Chain-style SoDs in turn become a quick method for moping up minion trash or forgettable Encounters tossed for the sole purpose of draining resources before the next major fight without bogging things down with multiple attack & damage rolls per creature.

In a way, they function as an alternative to a Metamagic'ed Fireball except you don't need the party to pick up a bunch of Spellguard Rings because the party is already immune to it. And speaking of, if you have a blaster in the party people tend to want to invest in a way that allows the nuker to perform his job without creating party causalities just as the blaster wants to maximize his damage. This leads to the end result is still a near binary death option that the party seeks to obtain immunity to. But it's not the same thing right?