D&D 5E Removing save-each-turn mechanic

[JackOfAllTirades]

? A combat encounter =/= the gaming session. Outside of that, I'd imagine the same thing players have been doing for decades in games with those types of rules.

That would be "not having any fun at all" which is why those rules got changed.

 

[Prism]

Many people seem worried about the effect of these spells when cast on the PCs when you have specifically said that you don't overuse caster NPC's. As long as a spell caster PC takes the correct spells or scrolls (assuming you allow crafting of these) then it won't be an issue

So a houserule like this is going to make combat a bit easier for the players with the effect that sometimes the spell caster can end a fight pretty quickly. Also, the spell caster becomes the only main way to remove the effects cast on PCs. You could put the spells up by a level but I would probably just ensure that each of them requires concentration to maintain.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That would be "not having any fun at all" which is why those rules got changed.

Yep, which is why when the game came out, it was such a big deal that they changed that rule immediately. Or 25 years later.... And why when they went away, no one ever played the older editions anymore....


Look, I get how and why some people don't like it. But obviously you didn't read my next post I made. Just because you didn't like them, doesn't mean that everyone didn't like them.

 

[Skyscraper]

Obvious question: when a PC gets paralyzed on the first round of combat, what will the player do for the rest of your gaming session?

I assume you mean battle scene and not gaming session, unless your battle scenes usually last for an entire gaming session? This is not the case for me.

Like I said, I think that the likelihood of PCs remaining paralyzed for an entire battle scene are very low.

We used to play AD&D where Hold Person could target, what was it, 3 enemies?, as a second level spell, with a single-save or paralyzed for the duration (which was longer than any battle). I don't recall PCs having remained paralyzed for an entire battle - though it might have happened sometimes. Other PCs would cast remove paralysis as spells or scrolls; or at worst, Dispel Magic.

Like I also mentioned, I think that the challenge is not one of players having to sit entire battle scenes out. It's more a question of gaming dynamics. If as a DM I were to pit the PCs against paralyzing monsters and wizards with Hold Person every battle; then we'd have something to think about. But really, those situations are rare in practice; and then there are ways for PCs to remove conditions such a paralysis. Also, I don't play at low level (1-3), I prefer heroic tier (4-10), so PCs do have access to counterspells.

So I hear your question, but your question addresses a problem that simply doesn't exist in my experience. A player doesn't sit out an entire gaming session.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Having played 1e from 1981 to 2012 when the playtest came out, that is one of the key differences I've seen in play. Dispel magic and scrolls exist in 5e, but I don't see anyone use them. They were staples in 1e. You didn't go adventuring unless you had one or the other.

I'll also note that I've noticed Gygax would always have something in the modules to counter whatever the PCs might encounter. A petrifying monster in the module? There was a stone to flesh scroll somewhere.

 

[Prism]

Having played 1e from 1981 to 2012 when the playtest came out, that is one of the key differences I've seen in play. Dispel magic and scrolls exist in 5e, but I don't see anyone use them. They were staples in 1e. You didn't go adventuring unless you had one or the other.

I'll also note that I've noticed Gygax would always have something in the modules to counter whatever the PCs might encounter. A petrifying monster in the module? There was a stone to flesh scroll somewhere.

I think its also worth adding that his adventures aren't very time sensitive either. In WG5 he provides a 'what actually happened in play' example where his character got turned to stone by the golem and the remaining character had to leave the dungeon, recruit some allies and then return with a stone to flesh spell. I can see this sort of thing problematic with one of todays story based adventures. I still love save or suck/die though!

 

[Skyscraper]

[MENTION=9501]Prism[/MENTION] and [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION], would you support bumping the spells one level up, or would you leave the spell level unchanged?

 

[Sacrosanct]

[MENTION=9501]Prism[/MENTION] and [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION], would you support bumping the spells one level up, or would you leave the spell level unchanged?

I'd probably bump them up a level, because casters in 5e have more slots than they did in AD&D when you first get access to those spells, or more ways to get slots back. Yes, at high levels the AD&D caster had more slots, but it was really easy to make your saving throws at high level too, whereas in 5e you will fail more often even at higher levels. So while that hold person loses potency at high levels in AD&D, it's still just as potent in 5e for the entire level range. Between those two things, I would bump them up a level personally.

 

[Dausuul]

Jeez. The OP wants to do a specific thing, asks for feedback on a particular approach to that thing, and everyone jumps in to say "DON'T DO THAT THING!" If it were my campaign, I'd never dream of implementing something like this - I strongly prefer the new approach - but it ain't my campaign.

So, to the question of balance: I would suggest a +2 level adjustment. The lack of ongoing saves completely changes the nature of many of these spells. With hold monster, for example, the spell as written requires the party to pile onto that monster immediately; you probably only have 1-2 rounds in which to take advantage of those sweet auto-crits, so you better go to town.

Removing the ongoing saves means the rest of the party has a lot more leeway. The other PCs can take a little time to dispatch their current foes before hammering the paralyzed monster; if the wizard is not in danger of losing concentration, the party can ignore the paralyzed monster entirely until all other enemies are mopped up. That's a big deal.

 

[Fimbria]

I assume you mean battle scene and not gaming session, unless your battle scenes usually last for an entire gaming session? This is not the case for me.

Like I said, I think that the likelihood of PCs remaining paralyzed for an entire battle scene are very low.

We used to play AD&D where Hold Person could target, what was it, 3 enemies?, as a second level spell, with a single-save or paralyzed for the duration (which was longer than any battle). I don't recall PCs having remained paralyzed for an entire battle - though it might have happened sometimes. Other PCs would cast remove paralysis as spells or scrolls; or at worst, Dispel Magic.

Like I also mentioned, I think that the challenge is not one of players having to sit entire battle scenes out. It's more a question of gaming dynamics. If as a DM I were to pit the PCs against paralyzing monsters and wizards with Hold Person every battle; then we'd have something to think about. But really, those situations are rare in practice; and then there are ways for PCs to remove conditions such a paralysis. Also, I don't play at low level (1-3), I prefer heroic tier (4-10), so PCs do have access to counterspells.

So I hear your question, but your question addresses a problem that simply doesn't exist in my experience. A player doesn't sit out an entire gaming session.

Good enough for me. In regard to your opening question, about... 4/5 of all games I've played have been dominated by a single battle. Without the 4e games, it drops down to half.

Mechanically, I'd compare save-or-suck spells to Eyebite. Eyebite is a level 6 save-or-suck spell that hits multiple targets, and it's considered respectable for its level. By that benchmark, single-target SoS spells should land around levels 4-5. Someone upthread suggested +2 level adjustment; I think that rule places most of the spells under discussion within that range. Hex should be an exception because it's not a normal spell, and of course you'd cap at level 9.