Save or Die/Save or Suck
Posted 11th July 2008 at 06:29 PM by Wulf Ratbane
Save or Die Spells
Problem
A single bad die roll at the start of a battle can remove a player-- or your Big Bad Evil Guy-- completely from the fight. This makes high-level play especially feel more like a gunfight, where the highest initiative roll wins, and the fight is decided in the first round.
Solution
Our solution is to change the philosophy of spells in the "Save or Die" and "Save or Suck" categories. While we want these spells to remain useful, we want to discourage their use as "game enders" in the opening rounds of a battle, and move them towards the later rounds of a battle. Soften up the foe a bit, then bring these spells into play.
Players are likely to cry foul (or "nerf!") at these changes. It is important to keep in mind that these changes will benefit the PCs much more over the long run, as they serve to protect them as well from bad rolls in the opening rounds of a fight.
Save or Die
Definition: Any harmful spell or effect with an instantaneous or permanent duration with save negates or save partial.
Solution: A creature with 50% or more of its hit points remaining receives two saving throws against the spell. If either succeeds, the spell fails. Creatures with fewer than 50% of their hit points remaining receive only the one save, as normal.
Save or Suck
Definition: Any harmful spell or effect with an ongoing duration (1 round/level, 1 min/level, etc.) with save negates.
Whereas Save or Die spells deprive the targets of life, Save or Suck spells are equally harmful in that they deprive the targets of their actions.
Solution: A creature with 50% or more of its hit points remaining receives a new saving throw every round (as with hold person). A creature with fewer than 50% of its hit points remaining does not receive a new saving throw. This change applies retroactively to hold person.
Spells in this category are most likely to be mind-affecting (enchantment and necromancy, primarily), but you will need to extend the list to include spell-like effects such as stunning blast.
Problem
A single bad die roll at the start of a battle can remove a player-- or your Big Bad Evil Guy-- completely from the fight. This makes high-level play especially feel more like a gunfight, where the highest initiative roll wins, and the fight is decided in the first round.
Solution
Our solution is to change the philosophy of spells in the "Save or Die" and "Save or Suck" categories. While we want these spells to remain useful, we want to discourage their use as "game enders" in the opening rounds of a battle, and move them towards the later rounds of a battle. Soften up the foe a bit, then bring these spells into play.
Players are likely to cry foul (or "nerf!") at these changes. It is important to keep in mind that these changes will benefit the PCs much more over the long run, as they serve to protect them as well from bad rolls in the opening rounds of a fight.
Save or Die
Definition: Any harmful spell or effect with an instantaneous or permanent duration with save negates or save partial.
Solution: A creature with 50% or more of its hit points remaining receives two saving throws against the spell. If either succeeds, the spell fails. Creatures with fewer than 50% of their hit points remaining receive only the one save, as normal.
Save or Suck
Definition: Any harmful spell or effect with an ongoing duration (1 round/level, 1 min/level, etc.) with save negates.
Whereas Save or Die spells deprive the targets of life, Save or Suck spells are equally harmful in that they deprive the targets of their actions.
Solution: A creature with 50% or more of its hit points remaining receives a new saving throw every round (as with hold person). A creature with fewer than 50% of its hit points remaining does not receive a new saving throw. This change applies retroactively to hold person.
Spells in this category are most likely to be mind-affecting (enchantment and necromancy, primarily), but you will need to extend the list to include spell-like effects such as stunning blast.
Total Comments 17
Comments
-
An elegant solution for a difficult problem. One concern is that Save or Suck spells add an additional dice for players to roll. This might fall under the "Player's truns take too long to resolve" problem from your previous post.
As an option instead of multiple saves apply the effect based on the foe's level/HD similar to Holy Word and its ilk. Lower level creatures would die or be severely damaged while higher level foes would take lesser amounts of damage or a negative status condition. This would require rewriting an chunk of the spells in SRD and so may not be feasible.Posted 11th July 2008 at 09:16 PM by The Black Kestrel
-
I don't generally have a problem with "more rolls" as long as the rolls are coming in batches aiming at the same DC-- which this would be. (You'll see that "batch roll" concept again later with regards to iterative attacks.)
So if the target isn't bloodied, just roll two d20's at the same time. If either is a success, the save is made.
With respect to your second point, I considered all sorts of "staging" solutions. One of the ones you see most common is for Flesh to Stone. "On the first round you're slowed, then you're held, then you turn to stone." That kind of thing. The problem with that solution, in addition to requiring a rewrite of all such spells in the SRD, is that you'd also have to rewrite all the 3rd party spells out there. Obviously, I won't be doing that.
I think ultimately the solution you want is the one that gives you principles that you can easily apply to all sorts of 3rd party stuff. That's why it is so important to really nail down those two definitions and how they interact with the existing spell mechanics.Posted 11th July 2008 at 09:44 PM by Wulf Ratbane -
Interesting "save or suck" solution. Ego whip is a widely derided power, but I don't think much of it because you attack opponents on a different axis than most of your companions are, making your efforts a bit "out of sync". The idea of the "bloodied" condition puts magical attacks and physical ones on the same "attack vector".Posted 11th July 2008 at 11:32 PM by Psion -
In a way, it puts hit points back in the place they are intented to be - they present your "plot protection" from bad things happening to you. As long as you have enough hit points, you can avoid the worst.
Save or Die spells always were ways to circumvent this plot protection, and I think they might be one of the reasons why action point mechanics have become so popular over time - you needed an other way to represent your "plot protection" - and sometimes turning even into "plot manipulation", like when you use an action point to improve an attack or skill check.
Torgs "Possibilities" encompass both - hit points and action points, too. And I wonder if this wouldn't be an interesting approach to get away from hit points (if one wanted to), but still maintain regular/cinematic combat. (It certainly works for Torg )
[/rambling]Posted 12th July 2008 at 05:00 PM by Mustrum_Ridcully - Well, I've picked over an SRD database in conjunction with my filters, and although they're workable, they aren't perfect.
As an alternate solution, along MRs suggestion, what do folks think about putting this decision back into the hands of the players, via an Action Point/Encounter Point/Second Wind mechanic?
Or is defining the actual list of trouble spells the preferred solution, even if it can't possibly include all 3rd party spells?Posted 15th July 2008 at 07:35 PM by Wulf Ratbane -
I would prefer the spell list suggestion. Simply because I'm the lazy/dumb type who wouldn't want to figure out which spell is considered what. And thanks for the great idea. Allowing two rolls when your not bloodied is very smart.Posted 27th July 2008 at 09:03 PM by MichaelSomething -
While I agree that, generally speaking, this is a pretty good solution, it does have quite a major impact on foes whose schtick relies on save or die/suck abilities.
The two that immediately spring to my mind are the basilisk and bodak. Since neither of these can feasibly reudce their enemies to half hit points (as both have low attack bonuses and ACs for their CR), the 50% rule doesn't work very well for them. For these types of creatures, the rule is essentially saying that everyone will get two saves all the time, which reduces their effectiveness considerably IMO.
Not sure how to resolve this, though. I thought you could add a special ability which allowed creatures with such effects to force its target into making only 1 save (even if they're not below 50% of their hit points), but with a penalty to the DC (say -4 or some such), but it kinda still equates to the same thing.
Or you could say that they can force a victim to make a single save (whatever their hit points) every 1d4 rounds (like a dragon's breath weapon) - otherwise the target gets two saves. However, it's not very elegant and still doesn't really get to the heart of the problem.
Another issue that pops to mind is the assassin's death attack. It doesn't work too well with the 50% hit point rule. Unless they send in the mooks first, to try and reduce their target's hit points, they're always going to get the two saving throws, making it that much more risky for the assassin, especially given that they need to take three rounds before they can even attempt it.
Anyway, just some random thoughts.Posted 25th August 2008 at 01:04 PM by The Kyngdoms - I'd say that the Bodak is of little loss myself. The creature is devoid of flavor and is almost one of the signature reasons that save or die sucks.Quote:The two that immediately spring to my mind are the basilisk and bodak.
As far as I am concerned, Save or Die has its place in the game, being a source of power the players can fear. But that source should be in a final deathtrap or BBEG's arsenal, not in a random creature encounter.
Basilisk, I am less wary of since 1) thematically, you often have warning, with littered bits of petrified victims about, and 2) petrification is easier to recover from in the game than death (no level loss, break enchantment.)Posted 25th August 2008 at 02:04 PM by Psion - While I don't overly disagree with you about the bodak - I once played in a game that was almost entirely derailed by a single bodak encounter, which saw so many PCs die there was practically a bloody army of the things by the time we'd finished - I thought the point was finding a mechanic that worked irrespective of what our own opinions are of any given monster/spell etc.
The point is, I think, that the bodak and basilisk represent what I feel is a weakness in the presented mechanic. I may have used the bodak as an example, but I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.Posted 25th August 2008 at 03:30 PM by The Kyngdoms - There's a thread in the General forum right now about the effect of rolling two d20 and taking the higher result. The average result is a bonus of about +3.
From the DM side of the screen, that's a result I can certainly live with. Assuming that you're challenging the PCs around their own CR, I think these Save or Die creatures will still be scary "enough."
At the moment, however, I am probably leaning more towards an Action Point mechanic, both for the PCs and my BBEGs. It takes all of the work out of determining what is and isn't a "vital save." Just put it in the hands of the PC.
You want to roll two saves and take the better roll? Spend an AP.
You want to make a second save for an ongoing effect? Spend an AP.
I'd be happy to hear folks' opinion on that as well.Posted 25th August 2008 at 11:12 PM by Wulf Ratbane - How about skirting the "second save" altogether and go the SWSE route: change save or die to save, spend an AP, or die.
Or use Ryan Stoughton's Death Flag.Posted 25th August 2008 at 11:24 PM by Psion - That's too much of a guarantee.
Do you have a link to Ryan's Death Flag? Is that part of E6?Posted 26th August 2008 at 04:02 AM by Wulf Ratbane - No, it's part of his Raising the Stakes hack.Posted 26th August 2008 at 04:48 AM by Psion
- Cool, thx for link. I know I've read that before, I'll pick through it again.Posted 26th August 2008 at 02:56 PM by Wulf Ratbane
- Interesting. There's a lot of cool ideas in there but my current group isn't "mature" enough (as gamers) to grok the Conviction/Raising portion. Grrr.
The problem I see with the Death Flag is along the same lines. I think my players would just never raise the flag. The downside is a game without "wahoo," balanced against a status quo game where you don't have to worry about dying.Posted 26th August 2008 at 03:05 PM by Wulf Ratbane - That's the chief reason I like it. I know there are some people who don't want their character to die ever. Others are willing to ride the razor's edge; those sorts of people make the game more fun, IMO. The death flag mechanic lets me elicit player buy-in.Quote:The problem I see with the Death Flag is along the same lines. I think my players would just never raise the flag.Posted 26th August 2008 at 03:29 PM by Psion
- Now this idea I like very much.Quote:You want to roll two saves and take the better roll? Spend an AP.
You want to make a second save for an ongoing effect? Spend an AP.
We use APs, so it would fit in very nicely. We use the AP system from Unearthed Arcana, with a couple of modifications - one of which is that all APs reset themselves each level (so no hoarding them). Using this system would still allow the monsters to retain their danger, while putting in place a mechanism to help offer slightly better odds of surviving, at the player's choice.
I may well use this.Posted 28th August 2008 at 12:53 AM by The Kyngdoms
Total Trackbacks 0
And yet another word from our sponsors
