D&D 5E Is it fair to cast save-or-suck spells on the players?

Sometimes the rules, the situation and luck conspire to make a lousy game session for one or more players--through no fault of their own. People play D&D to play D&D after all and sitting around for hours on end without being able to participate can be excruciating. I can't fault the player for being pissed. I've wasted enough hours out of the action in 3.5e games to feel their pain.

5e is a heck of a lot better than 3.5e or Pathfinder in that regard. Rounds move faster and most effects give you an automatic save chance/round or chances to break Concentration. Still, high-level effects are still potent, high-level play still seems to be balanced around neutering half the party to prevent them ganking the baddies in a single round, and the only good defense against spells is other spells. D&D doesn't transition gracefully from scrappy adventurers to potent demi-gods and high-level balancing is usually just foisted on the individual DMs.

I do think it's fair to use save-or-suck spells vs. players, but I certainly use them with care (which it sounds like the OP did, other than missing the banishment effect of prismatic spray). I certainly wouldn't ask or expect a player to sit around for hours and not participate in the game--I do whatever is necessary to get them back into the action in some form as soon as possible. I even let them advise and help strategize if they so choose since they are still a player in the group even if their PC isn't with the party. If there's no solution to get them back in the game, I'd happily let them leave with no hard feelings. I certainly don't want a someone to feel obliged to hang out if they're not contributing and have things to do.

As to the OP's dilemma, I take it from the situation that the afflicted characters were not protected by anti-magic allowing the spells. Which means that they chose to make themselves a target--to run the risk of being hit with high-level magic. Sure the overall effect was a bummer, but they acted heroically and drew high-level slots away from the baddies. That's something of an upside.

EDIT: Sounds like a fun game.

Charles Rampant said:

I had numerous counter-arguments, which I won't get into here; what I'm interested in is hearing the thoughts of others. Do you agree with the players?

Click to expand...

Not really in this case. At least with save-or-suck spells you get a save and usually you get a save each round. No one wants to get stunlocked by a monster but players have a number ways to help each other out with that stuff. Paladins have aura, clerics have bless, there are a few abilities that let you help another character on a reaction.

It's the no-save-and-suck spells I'm a bit concerned by. Power word stun or power word kill (although at least stun has a save at the end of each round).

GMforPowergamers said:

please elaborate... I still have this argument all the time (it was back in 2e). No one has ever given me what I should have done different. I left because the other option was to sit there and do nothing. Now to be fair the DM had a big "No metagaming" rule so I couldn't even out of game interact in any meaningful way... please tell me what the 'correct' option was... I think going to the movies was much better

Click to expand...

I'd say it's largely because after you've invested all of this time and fun with your friends and your characters, that it might be fun to see what happens to them, even if you're not participating directly.

The implication behind what you did is that if you're in a big climactic battle, and you die early in the battle, that you won't stick around to see how the story ends up. The story that (at least in my campaign) you would have written with the other players through your character's actions.

I've sat for hours watching somebody else's game. Heck, people watch other people's games on YouTube. I would think you'd have as much interest, if not more, in a game you actually participated in.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say you're wrong. Nor do I know what the conversation, etc. was like at the time. But it does seem odd to me.

In the encounter described in the OP I'd certainly be interested in seeing if my companions would survive.

Sadras said:

Sorry @GMforPowergamers but I'm calling you out on this as Sir @Caliban of Enworld is repeatedly summoning his steed and charging in with Huma's freakin' dragonlance.

Someone has got to stop that paladin!

Click to expand...

Really? You're "calling him out"? What's next, you going to trash his locker and meet him behind the bleachers?

Charles Rampant said:

To be honest, I can only interpret this and your previous post as attempts to declare yourself smarter than me. Why you'd waste so many words trying to assert this, I don't know. If you want to feel superior, there seems easier ways to go about it.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

Edit to add: if anything, I was remarking that I thought you were nicer than me. I was assuming that you knew full well a dozen ways to kill the PCs, but chose not to use them. E.g. I assume you used AoEs on the party so that the monk can have fun Evading them, and not because they are actually effective on him.

The second post wasn't really much to do with you at all. It was a response to another poster on the topic of the way players feel when monsters are underplayed.

Apropos of nothing, an old saying goes: you'd worry less what other people thought of you if you knew how seldom they do.

JonnyP71 said:

The DM was correct...

Click to expand...

Blarg?

Sadras said:

I agree with @JonnyP71 the DM was correct. You as a player might have no idea what might be planned ahead. Sticking around for only 15 minutes is bad form.

Click to expand...

Oh, wow, you guys weren't kidding.

JonnyP71 said:

Sit and enjoy the story, support your friends, share pizza, plus you never know - the DM *may* have provided a way of getting you out. Simply getting up and leaving smacks of selfishness.

The DM has probably spent 6+ hours getting everything ready for the session, and the moment it goes wrong for you you leave? If I was the DM I'd have been unhappy with you continuing to be part of the group - it's just plain rude and ignorant.

Click to expand...

Just... wow.

This just blows my mind that anyone would have an issue with GM4PG. You would rather a player sit out and be sidelined for an entire session than just excuse himself? And you're perfectly fine with any scenario where this is even possible? Seriously?

How is this not 100% a GM fail? Had he just killed the PC, the player could have rerolled a character and off we go. No harm, no foul. But, instead, he sets up a trap where the PC isn't dead, but, cannot possibly be returned for the duration of the scenario. And you not only expect the player to sit through the entire session, but, you would actually consider it rude an ignorant for the player to excuse himself?

Wow.

It's not like the player flipped over the table and stormed outside. He sat for a bit, asked if there was any chance that he'd get to play for the rest of the session, and THEN bugged out. That's about as polite as it gets. Expecting a player to ride the pines for the next five hours because you happened to spend time prepping an adventure and refuse to then change your precious notes so that it might be possible to return the PC to the game is about as mind boggling stupid as it gets. And then to jump on [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] for being the rude one?

Good grief. Talk about entitlement. "I spent all this time on this, the least you can do is waste the next several hours appreciating my glory. No, you can't actually do anything. No, you can't actually participate. You just have to sit there and bask in the wonderment that is me."

I'd be relieved to be kicked out of this group.

Charles Rampant said:

Do you agree with the players?

Click to expand...

Most of the effects seem fair enough and on the other hand being Banished out of the Adventure seems particularly counter intuitive.

lowkey13 said:

Going back to your scenario, it's a violation of the social compact when a player, faced with consequences, decides to pack up and leave. It is, to use the words of your DM, rude. There's a lot of ways to interact with a social dynamic like this- you can yell, you can scream, or you can protest by quietly taking your ball and going home, in essence showing that if something didn't go your way, you won't stay. That type of behavior hangs over a table and a campaign. You may not have meant it to be taken that way, but it is (IMO) rude to the table (the DM and the players) as well as an implicit threat that if your character faces consequences, then you won't play.

Click to expand...

I would have imagined, from a rule utilitarian standpoint, that taking a low fun scoring player out of the group equation would actually raise the Maximum group fun score?

So then the only logical conclusion is that it is not rude for the Player to leave the encounter but indeed would be rude for the Player to selfishly remain.

Player complaining with the DM about "design failures" (after failing multiple rolls) is a game feature of a way / culture of playing that I don't recognize anymore.
If the NPCs failed the same rolls after they cast the same spells I'm sure they wouldn't complain about "design failures".

Yaztromo said:

Player complaining with the DM about "design failures" (after failing multiple rolls) is a game feature of a way / culture of playing that I don't recognize anymore.
If the NPCs failed the same rolls after they cast the same spells I'm sure they wouldn't complain about "design failures".

Click to expand...

*facepalm