Topic: Thoughts on save or die and fate points

As a long time D&D gamer (started in '81) over the years of gaming there's always complaints about save or die with poisons and such. Many games have implemented hero points, fate points, etc. I've explained to my group that we don't need that as D&D has this built in with the saving throw.

Yes it sucks that the poisoned needle is filled with a deadly poison (whatever the case maybe) you should have died then, but instead you get one more chance roll a save and you make it.

The evil wizard hit you with a fireball and you just take xx amount of damage, but you can try and dodge out of the way (kind of like they do in movies when defying the laws of physics people out jump, run, etc... fiery explosions) roll a save.



So am I off base what do you think about saves vs fate points?

"Your mouth is like my ass nothing good ever comes out of it"

Re: Thoughts on save or die and fate points

Saving throws are far superior, imo, if simplicity is what you are aiming for in your games. If the player's know that poison (and other nasty things) can kill them in one go, then they should be much more careful about where they step and what they grab or pull on.  Save vs. death events should be relatively rare in an adventure unless the players deliberately do stupid things that warrant their increase.  Many character classes have increased saves and these should be you door openers, trap disarmers, etc.

The implementation of fate points works well in games that choose to do it, but they also tend to involve burning fate points for re-rolls or dice modifiers.  This can quickly get very complex and defeat the purpose of streamlined rule sets like LotFP.

Re: Thoughts on save or die and fate points

I'm against it, it defeats a lot of the risk that comes with adventuring.

I've done a lot with death saves where they cause a complication in the adventure and the person that failed is put into a situation where he'll die soon without aid from the other PCs.