Instant Death

[Jajo]

 I refuse to answer

No surprise there.

 

 

silly questions

Something sure is silly, but it's not the questions.

 

 

Death is not a status effect.

With resurrect, raise dead, etc, yes, yes it is.

 

Your mental gymnastics is beyond astonishing.

[Sensuki]

Newsflash

No instant death in P:E

 

I know it sucks, but oh well.

[Stun]

 

I think that's good enough to prove the point. You owe me. You will answer a Yes-or-No question for me now, Without your usual dodging, or stream of consciousnessness blathering. YES OR NO, Lephys, since all these spells produce just a single static, invariable effect (just like insta-death spells do!), should they be removed?

They don't produce a static effect

 

If by static, you mean 'permanent', then Neither do death spells.... in any game that has them. Although you're still wrong. I listed a few spells that, in fact, have 'permanent' effects (they don't expire on their own), and I can list a dozen more for you if you'd like. But I do get a chuckle out of this NEW criteria you've thrown at us: If it's permanent then it's a No Go! Hello, Genius, Weapon damage in the IE games is also permanent, unless:

 

1) You rest for many days.

 

or

 

2) You reverse that damage with MAGIC!

 

And #2 is the remedy for every effect and state in the entire game.

 

 

 

Also, you can still do things while Silenced, and while Slowed, etc. You're just left to deal with a changed factor.

While the rest of your points could be easily dismissed by any 7 year old who's following this discussion (since they've all already been countered repeatedly... over and over), I do feel the need to personally address this part. Dungeons & Dragons, as well as all the Infinity engine games.... are *party* based. And all aspects of combat, from the mechanics to the encounters, are designed and balanced around the assumption of a party. This means that you are not stating any sort of relevant difference here. The vast majority of death spells are single-target. And when one of your party members dies, You (the player; the party) 1) can still do stuff; 2) can still deal with the changed state. In fact, that's the whole point behind putting death spells in games in the first place: to force changed states.

 

 

If you could tell me how that doesn't make any sense, that would be lovely.

Done. (scroll up) As much as you may think you're making sense, all you're doing is thinking narrowly, in the complete absense of any D&D and IE game experience. News flash: Death is, in fact, Temporary. It's temporary in all these games. In fact, for good players, Death is a very short duration spell. It lasts half a round.

 

Lephys, No one is stupid enough to ask for Death spells without also asking for Counters, resistances and cures to be put into the system along side them. So please, for the sake of the *SENSE* you keep harping on, stop using the word "static". Nothing is static in a good RPG.

 

 

Death is not a status effect.

It doesn't need to be. It can totally fill out its own role in combat by serving as a result. A result of an action, an inaction, or just plain old bad luck (or good luck).

 

Stop trying to create your own silly goalposts.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Stun

[Randomthom]

Arguing with Lephys appears to be something of a pointless venture it would seem. It's not a debate, that would involve some control of nonsense. It's not an argument, that would suggest that someone is right/wrong. It's more akin to bashing your cranium against a brick wall until all your brain cells fall out, & you stop arguing. I'd suggest that Lephys is actually Harry Potter and thus had a particularly traumatic incident in childhood concerning instant-death spells.

[curryinahurry]

It has been posted on the main PE Kickstarter page, but I'm glad you reposted it here because I think it's a great interview. My smile was bigger with every page of it. I especially liked the Health/Stamina system Josh described. I think all the Prophets of Doom, claiming PE will be streamlined and easy should have a look:

 

As for regeneration, I'd like to experiment with handling health in a manner somewhat similar to the 1992 RPG Darklands. Characters have two health resources: Stamina and Health. Proportionally, the character takes much more Stamina damage from an attack than Health damage. Stamina recovers relatively quickly on its own (and with the aid of magic) but Health damage requires rest. If a character hits 0 Stamina, he or she will go unconscious. If a character hits 0 Health, he or she dies.

 

This sort of a system provides a buffer for characters so they can be temporarily defeated in combat without being brought to the verge of death every time. Similarly, allowing a character to recover to full Stamina over a short period of time does nothing to help his or her Health, so walking around with full Stamina and low Health would be extremely dangerous.

 

As far as resurrection goes, Project Eternity will not have any form of in-game resurrection. Healing magic of any sort is extraordinarily rare in this world and resurrection would pull at the fabric of the mortal reincarnation cycle. However, we may include an option to turn off permanent character death. Naturally, this would be disabled in Expert Mode.

This, if realised well, may be an excellent system. I hope we soon learn more about what else we'll be able to do when resting.

 

 

 

Has anything regarding resurrection changed since this post/ topic?  My understanding is that there is no resurrection or raise dead in P:E.  They are looking into perma-death for certain modes, possibly even as the default.  

 

The point being, that unlike a D&D game, which Project Eternity is not, the design goal is prevent trivializing player death.  Thus the dual hit point system, no-resurrection, etc.

[Bartimaeus]

Absolutely. Though, I think, for spells like Imprisonment or Flesh to Stone, (that actually aren't death and are reversible), it shouldn't end the game. Additionally, of course, there should be ways of protecting one's self from most of these types of "instant death" - death ward, protection from petrification, etc.

 

(edit) Reading the above...sigh, I'm beginning to miss AD&D...

Edited June 15, 2013 by Bartimaeus

[Morgulon the Wise]

@curryinahurry

Thank you for digging this up.

Are there any newer statements for no-resurrection or the other topics like the attributes? What is the status quo? I think we all lost kinda sight of it, the actual discussion in this thread proves it. Which are the newest affirmations/disapprovals by the devs?

Edited June 15, 2013 by Morgulon the Wise

[Lephys]

@Jajo: Good one. I'm gonna go cry now.

 

@Stun: Do you not understand that "permanent" doesn't necessarily mean "ETERNAL!"? That's why sharpies are "permanent markers," and yet their ink CAN be removed from things. Splashing a chemical in your eyes can cause "permanent blindness." The marker's ink isn't going to ever fade or wear off on its own. Your eyesight isn't going to recover or get any better on its own.

 

Obviously you could get surgery, and get some bionic eyes, and your eyesight would "return." Really, though, it's not the same eyesight. You were blind, and you were granted eyesight.

 

@RandomThom: Arguing with me about simple, objectively-true observations being false is probably cause for frustration. I can't help it that people constantly want to argue all around my point, then act like they nailed it. This really isn't the "either everything I'm saying is true and everything YOU'RE saying is false, or vice versa!" argument everyone seems to like to pretend a simple debate is. My one-and-only actual point is that an instantaneous, all-or-nothing death spell is quantifiably more tactically-restrictive than any other spell/ability in its place that offers a range of potential effects rather than a single effect.

 

I really don't see how that's so difficult to comprehend. I've said like 73 times, that doesn't make the game instantly terrible. It doesn't cause a time paradox and implode the universe. It's not really that big of a deal. It's just a simple fact. Arguing that it's wrong, and, worse, that the OPPOSITE is actually true, is pretty ridiculous.

 

I don't think insta-death spells are stupid. I just think they conflict with a game whose combat thrives on tactical variance, and whose health system isn't even designed around in-combat resurrections.

 

But, apparently it's more fun for people to pretend I'm saying 17 other things, and that's not one of them. *shrug*

 

Hmm... maybe I'm just a ****, and I actually get my kicks out of typing hundreds of words in an out-of-my-way effort to clarify my points and bridge the gaps of misunderstandings? Gyah... who DOES that? I should just resort to personal attacks that have nothing to even do with the topic at hand. That's probably way more constructive.

[Stun]

My one-and-only actual point is that an instantaneous, all-or-nothing death spell is quantifiably more tactically-restrictive than any other spell/ability in its place that offers a range of potential effects rather than a single effect.

A system that doesn't have Both types is, OBJECTIVELY, and QUANTIFIABLY, more limited in scope. But you've been arguing for the exclusion of one, while we've been arguing for the inclusion of both. Because that's how the Infinity engine games did it.

 

So yeah, stop spinning your stance to make it look like you're arguing for the larger, all encompassing, system, when in fact, you want something far more limited.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Stun

[Lephys]

I haven't spun my stance a single time this entire discussion. If I failed to make myself clear, then I've merely re-clarified to shed unintended details, contexts, and possible word meanings. If you weren't so busy pretending I was spinning it, maybe you'd see my point.

 

"instant-death" isn't a functionally different "type" of ability. It's simply infinite damage. So, any finite-damage ability already does the same thing (even possessing the possibility of killing you in a single blow, if the damage happens to be enough, under the circumstances, to do so). Therefore, all you're introducing is a narrower version of the same thing. "This ability deals damage to you, but it's never not enough to kill you, as opposed to the other ones that can be not enough to kill you." Because of that, it even presents you with a narrower set of viable options (all of which are already included in the broader set of options all other abilities present you with) for "countering"/handling that ability being used.

 

That's what you're not comprehending. Lore(style)-wise, it's doing something "different." It kills you, rather than simply damaging you, or issuing a status effect. But, mechanically -- functionally -- (which is all that affects combat's tactical offering), it simply deals infinite damage.

 

Once again: Sword swing? A range of potential effects, including death.. Normal spell/ability? A range of potential effects, including death. Insta-death spell? A single potential effect; death. (remember, a failure to affect is not an effect, but, rather the absence of an effect. As in "it has no effect." I'm well aware that pretty much every existing ability has the potential to generate no effect.)

Edited June 15, 2013 by Lephys

[curryinahurry]

@ Morgulon The Wise

 

Thanks,  there is a a design rationale Obsidian is following for not including death spells and it revolves around the difference between tactics and strategy.  Yes, death spells are a tactic, but in a game where there is resurrection, there is really no strategic benefit.  Much of what I have understood as Obsidian's intent in P:E is to make the the game not just tactically interesting, but also strategically challenging as well.  A game where death is a temporary effect or where party members chug potions between encounters cheapens resource management; thus the dual HP and no-resurrection/no death spells.

 

@ Bartimaeus

 

I understand your concern, but D&D is just one gaming system (one that wasn't designed for CRPGs ).  The IE games, to me and anyone who knew the PnP rules (likely), weren't much of a challenge in terms of death spells.  There are a lot of other ways to handle debilitating effects to party members, especially in a game without resurrection, that can be just as punitive; or even more so.

[Stun]

Thanks, there is a a design rationale Obsidian is following for not including death spells and it revolves around the difference between tactics and strategy.

That's... not true. We've *got* The stated rationale by PE's lead designer on this very thread. No need for guess work.

 

Sawyer doesn't want death spells because he believes that most gamers are crappy players who will just reload if something bad suddenly happens to their party members. ie. "degenerate gaming", as he calls it. He's infatuated with this topic. Every single one of his design decisions is based on trying to "cure" the masses of their bad habits. (and no, his "hard counter" argument is not relevant. It's a red herring. Players use hard counters for everything, including basic melee)

 

Personally, I see nothing but failure coming from such a mindset. He should be focussing on creating a *fun*, dynamic system with all the options, and less about trying to second guess the save scumming degenerates among us.

 

 

I understand your concern, but D&D is just one gaming system (one that wasn't designed for CRPGs ). The IE games, to me and anyone who knew the PnP rules (likely), weren't much of a challenge in terms of death spells. There are a lot of other ways to handle debilitating effects to party members, especially in a game without resurrection, that can be just as punitive; or even more so.

^that's a point I tried to make for a few pages, but it mostly fell on deaf ears. Death spells in the IE games were not the game/system changers that their detractors are making them out to be. They were merely another tool. One of many that those games gave you. They were, in fact, borderline redundant. But there's no such thing as redundancy in an RPG, as one person's redundant is another person's Role-playing Options.

 

The more important, philosophical, issue though, is with regards to Luck and whether a game's system should have it. This debate started with that topic. Sawyer says he doesn't like it (cuz, you know, people will just reload 'til they get good luck!). I say a system becomes boring really fast without it. And that's where death spells come in.....

Edited June 15, 2013 by Stun

[Lephys]

I don't think Sawyer hates luck. I just think he hates it playing too big of a part. Randomness is a wonderful supplemental element in RPGs, but the whole point of an RPG is to actually get to make decisions that impact things. If you make excellent tactical decisions in combat, for example, then you should always do better than someone who made worse tactical decisions in combat. With luck thrown in, you can possibly do a little better or worse than someone else who makes the exact same decisions, but simple luck should not overturn all your efforts and cleverness.

 

With insta-death spells, you're using extremely narrow tactics. "Resist this effect or die." So what do you get in return? The same kind of narrow counter-tactics. "Resist this effect or fail to produce the effect that I must either resist or die!"

 

What happens when you run into an enemy "party" of necromancers, and they all start hurling insta-death at you? The person with 6 mages in their party might be okay, I suppose. You could cast 6 mass-silences, and hope that the overwhelming odds mean that the necromancers don't resist ALL those silence effects. Then, you hope that your party resists whatever death-effects come your way.

 

Tactics don't depend on the absence of chance, but they're also overruled when combat becomes sitting around watching completely-random dice rolls single-handedly determine such huge outcomes, like "there was totally nothing wrong with you, but now YOU DIE!" If I move into the best possible position to attack a given enemy, and use the best abilities, I'm going to miss/fail part of the time, but the same is true of attacking from a terrible position and using the worst abilities. But missing 5 out of 10 times while using significantly better tactics produces a better outcome than missing 5 out of 10 times while using terrible tactics. When facing things like insta-death spells, your tactical decisions take a backseat to the dice rolls, because the outcome of JUST the dice rolls, themselves, is so great.

 

Basically, when chance and tactics don't work in conjunction, things aren't as interesting. That's why chance is in there in the first place. You don't want to just go "well, I'm making the best decisions, so they ALWAYS WORK PERFECTLY!" Hence, chance. But you also don't want to say "well, the only thing that really matters here is whether or not this dice lands on less than 50 or greater than 50."

 

So, like I said, I don't actually mind the death effect, if it requires actual tactics to pull off. If it's not just a single dice roll, then awesome. If something's going to kill you (within a tactical combat setting), it doesn't need to be instant. It needs to be tricky to pull off.

 

I just think the threat of death from a spell that causes it should be just as complex and tactical as the threat of death from damage or any other combination of combat factors. Not a simple "Avada Kedavra." That's all.

[Stun]

I don't think Sawyer hates luck. I just think he hates it playing too big of a part. Randomness is a wonderful supplemental element in RPGs, but the whole point of an RPG is to actually get to make decisions that impact things. If you make excellent tactical decisions in combat, for example, then you should always do better than someone who made worse tactical decisions in combat. With luck thrown in, you can possibly do a little better or worse than someone else who makes the exact same decisions, but simple luck should not overturn all your efforts and cleverness.

 

With insta-death spells, you're using extremely narrow tactics. "Resist this effect or die." So what do you get in return? The same kind of narrow counter-tactics. "Resist this effect or fail to produce the effect that I must either resist or die!"

 

What happens when you run into an enemy "party" of necromancers, and they all start hurling insta-death at you? The person with 6 mages in their party might be okay, I suppose. You could cast 6 mass-silences, and hope that the overwhelming odds mean that the necromancers don't resist ALL those silence effects. Then, you hope that your party resists whatever death-effects come your way.

 

Tactics don't depend on the absence of chance, but they're also overruled when combat becomes sitting around watching completely-random dice rolls single-handedly determine such huge outcomes, like "there was totally nothing wrong with you, but now YOU DIE!" If I move into the best possible position to attack a given enemy, and use the best abilities, I'm going to miss/fail part of the time, but the same is true of attacking from a terrible position and using the worst abilities. But missing 5 out of 10 times while using significantly better tactics produces a better outcome than missing 5 out of 10 times while using terrible tactics. When facing things like insta-death spells, your tactical decisions take a backseat to the dice rolls, because the outcome of JUST the dice rolls, themselves, is so great.

 

Basically, when chance and tactics don't work in conjunction, things aren't as interesting. That's why chance is in there in the first place. You don't want to just go "well, I'm making the best decisions, so they ALWAYS WORK PERFECTLY!" Hence, chance. But you also don't want to say "well, the only thing that really matters here is whether or not this dice lands on less than 50 or greater than 50."

 

So, like I said, I don't actually mind the death effect, if it requires actual tactics to pull off. If it's not just a single dice roll, then awesome. If something's going to kill you (within a tactical combat setting), it doesn't need to be instant. It needs to be tricky to pull off.

 

I just think the threat of death from a spell that causes it should be just as complex and tactical as the threat of death from damage or any other combination of combat factors. Not a simple "Avada Kedavra." That's all.

LOL @ your epic straw man.

 

The inclusion of a few death spells does not mean they're going to be playing too big of a part... in anything. Nor does it mean combat is reduced to narrower tactics. Nor does their use mean everyone is sitting around just depending on completely random dice rolls.

 

Oh, and Chance and tactics aren't mutually exclusive. One does not automatically cancel out the other. Nor is a player prevented from using one to enhance the other. Both have successfully co-existed in the same system for DECADES.

 

 

Good God, Lephys, could you have posted a more absurd response?

Edited June 15, 2013 by Stun

[Lephys]

Nowhere in any of that did I say anything about the quantity/frequency of death spells playing too big of a part "... in anything." I specifically spoke of chance playing too big of a part in something. Such as deciding whether infinite damage is dealt, or 0 damage is dealt. The deciding factor of whether you die or don't die is a dice roll, and nothing more. That's chance overstepping its bounds.

 

Where on earth, in ANY of that quote, did you get even the tiniest shred of "chance and tactics are mutually exclusive"? The entire basis of my text was that they should both work together in appropriate amounts.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Lephys

[Stun]

<gag>

 

Lephys, you said this:

but the whole point of an RPG is to actually get to make decisions that impact things.

Is it your contention that the inclusion of death spells into an already varied and robust system eliminates the player's ability to make decisions that impact things?

 

If not, then why post such a moronic straw man?

Edited June 16, 2013 by Stun

[curryinahurry]

 

Thanks, there is a a design rationale Obsidian is following for not including death spells and it revolves around the difference between tactics and strategy.

That's... not true. We've *got* The stated rationale by PE's lead designer on this very thread. No need for guess work.

 

Sawyer doesn't want death spells because he believes that most gamers are crappy players who will just reload if something bad suddenly happens to their party members. ie. "degenerate gaming", as he calls it. He's infatuated with this topic. Every single one of his design decisions is based on trying to "cure" the masses of their bad habits. (and no, his "hard counter" argument is not relevant. It's a red herring. Players use hard counters for everything, including basic melee)

 

Personally, I see nothing but failure coming from such a mindset. He should be focussing on creating a *fun*, dynamic system with all the options, and less about trying to second guess the save scumming degenerates among us.

 

 

 

I'm aware of that quote, but it has to be viewed in the context of larger game design decisions, and degenerate gameplay is not the only root cause, and likely not the driving force.  Degenerate gameplay issues are likely a test factor, as are likely other concepts like, 'intuitive', 'fun', etc.  

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't mind instant death as long as it occurs at high levels and is a high risk high reward tactic. I think it could work as a critical hit for negative energy based spells if how I understand hits and misses in PE to work is true.

[Morgulon the Wise]

I think death spells should be possible as complex rituals in defined plot situations. A death spell is a story for itself I think. It shouldn't be common or standard that someone just drops dead or disintegrates. It should be set in scene (without comments on morale) as the special thing it is. And if there's no resurrection then there just isn't. Its called fate ... or plot.

 

But maybe the plot just doesn't end with the spell cast.

 

I think in this way instant death should be possible. By the way: I didn't like them in BG and IWD because they were too unreliable.

[curryinahurry]

^ Sure, if there is real risk in casting or being  hit by such a spell.  As long as the spell fits into the game world, that's fine.  I think that people get nervous when they perceive  Obsidian wandering away from IE and D&D type gaming.  But the game system can have a different internal logic, and potentially be much more challenging.  With no resurrection, no healing potions and slow regeneration of health points, I think death will have real consequences in P:E.

[Stun]

^ Sure, if there is real risk in casting or being  hit by such a spell.  As long as the spell fits into the game world, that's fine.  I think that people get nervous when they perceive  Obsidian wandering away from IE and D&D type gaming.  But the game system can have a different internal logic, and potentially be much more challenging.  With no resurrection, no healing potions and slow regeneration of health points, I think death will have real consequences in P:E.

Indeed. With healing being rare, no resurrection mechanic, and a focus on some new resting mechanic to combat the degenerate gamer tactic of 'rest spamming', I imagine Death will have a couple of very real consequences in PE. Mainly: 1) Save scumming; and 2) Yer-dead-and-you-can-do-nothing-about-it!

 

Hahaha, well, will you look at that! 2 of the very arguments that the anti-death spell crowd has been using ad nausium on this thread.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Stun

[Lephys]

Obviously our arguments are whatever you say they are. I think I've personally cited save-scumming as one of the main reasons for doing away with instant-death, at least... oh, 0³⁷ times, that being 2nd only to the sheer possibility of any characters dying, at all, under any circumstances, and not being able to change the fact that they're dead, once dead.

 

Clearly, those are the two most numerously expressed problems in this entire thread. What would we do without you, Stun? *___*

[Stun]

Obviously our arguments are whatever you say they are. I think I've personally cited save-scumming as one of the main reasons for doing away with instant-death, at least... oh, 0³⁷ times,

And of course, I've been debating with absolutely no one else on this thread. The anti-death spell crowd = just lephys, don't you know.

 

Self absorbed poster is self absorbed.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Stun

[Sabotin]

I think the point about removing insta-death was more so that you don't have to have arbitrary immunities floating around, specially on bosses. Save scumming is I think more on the defensive side, when a party member dies unexpectedly, not so much for chasing the dice roll for some enemy.

 

As I see it, the entire removal is kind of a cheap solution and I would prefer if there were specific limitations to them instead. Like in D&D, death spells appeared later in the levels, they had double saves or affected only weaker creatures, affected allies, too, etc. In PE, since there's no resurrection these could be even stricter. There's no need to have chance in the equation at all. You can just put the risk factor on the player instead of a dice roll. For example if you have something that kills things below x hp it's up to the player to determine when is a good time to use it, something squishy might go down from Uninjured, something burly would already have to be Near Death. I realize you could count HP and have tables and stuff and be completely metagame if you wanted to, but I think that's annoying enough that people wouldn't bother?

 

You know, instant death effects can be easily be made near-instant or just camouflaged damage, so I'm hoping they're going that route if we really can't have Fingers of Death flying around. What I'm more concerned about is the rationale behind it, stated here: http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/463736096556078991 (comments)

 

Specific situational immunities can be a tool in the player's arsenal as any other. The two specific effects (insta-death & hard counter to solve it) don't exist in a vacuum and can be just alternatives.

For example those Illithid lairs in BG2. You have that amulet that makes you immune to the nasty attacks there. That does not solve all your problems as they have muscly servants and they can teleport around. If you do not have the amulet, it does not make it impossible. You just need to find a different way to get through. You can summon disposable minions, assassinate them before they can hit you, etc. You have to deal and adapt to their abilities because they are deadly (ok, maybe not 1 hit, but I think it serves the same purpose).

The issue that has been mentioned, that you are not prepared->die->reload->prepare->win should not work because of the absence of death spells and counters, but because the encounter would be designed so that not everything hinges on those, but an important part does, just to have another layer to the combat. An example of bad would be the beholder lairs with the Shield of Balduran.

About the exploitability from the player's side, that also just needs to be taken into account. If I had a hammer with 10% chance to kill something outright, who says that that should be exploited? Maybe I kill stuff in 5 swings normally and don't need the 10%. More knowledgeable enemies could notice that I have the legendary smasher of awesomeness and keep away. As mentioned before you can change the chance to something else too. Or even if I wanted to explot that weapon I wouldn't spam reloads, but base my party's power around survivability, so that the weapon has a chance to proc. Other limitations from death spells I've already mentioned.

 

I might be reading to much into it, but I just want to express my concerns that "averaging out" the combat might make it bland in the long run and that various creatures might lose their individuality or just atmosphere in general. Besides, tell me that you don't enjoy when once in a while a game lets you go on a power trip and you demolish a whole area of baddies without worry .

[Stun]

Wow! good post! And yes, those are some good examples there. It *IS* true (no matter how much people here wish to stick their heads in the sand and deny it) that insta-death/hard counters did not occur in the IE games in some vacuum. Instead, both were seamlessly implemented and they made sense within the greater system.

 

Interesting that you'd mention the Mindflayers in BG2. They serve another example. When encountered in groups they can be excrutiatingly nasty opponents. But, like all enemies, there was 100 ways to defeat them. And, amazingly enough, "using death spells" is not the best way. In fact, it was one of the hardest ways. Since they happened to be 90% magic resistant, which meant that if you were willing to gamble both your attack round and your spell arsenal on trying to take them out with "short-cut" death magic, that was your perogative. 90% of the time though, you failed and wasted your spell, and your round. However, if you got lucky and managed to bypass their resistances AND they failed their save, then you friggin DESERVED the instakill. You were one of Tymora's favored.

 

I don't see how someone who's played BG2 could look at such a system and say: "no way! shouldn't be there!" The only argument anyone can rationally make has already been made. Which is: well, some players will simply keep reloading until they get lucky. And to that, I say: Yeah, Ok. Sure. There's only, 10,000,000 illithids in BG2. Anyone who's hell bent on making sure their finger of death succeeds against them no matter what should probably be left alone in their instanity to butcher their own game experience as they wish. They are, in fact, not actually taking any shortcuts. They're doing things the long, hard way. They'll probably never finish the game. They'll be stuck in the underdark until BG3 comes out..

Edited June 17, 2013 by Stun