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

Here is a problem I've seen in a lot of games.

The DM assembles an overwhelming force and throws it at the PCs. The DM then proceeds to have the enemy use horrible tactics, cheats die rolls in the favor of the PCs, and in other ways coddles the battle so that the PCs win.

That is not fun for many players. Personally, it bugs the heck out of me.

This may be what we're seeing here. It was a deadly many times over encounter and involved PCs facing many difficult saves or being eliminated. It is hard for PCs not to get wiped out. If they're competitive when the enemy can launch several save or suck spells with a high DC per round... Yeah.

And, yes, I do realize that there are save or suck spells as low as 2nd level and that you can get a massive problem just throwing 20 3rd level clerics with hold person at a party. However, the higher DCs of tough spellcasters really do change things, especially when they target 'bad saves'.

steeldragons said:

ENworld needs a "LOVE" XP option just for this post.

This needs to be said/repeated, loudly and often these days.

Click to expand...

Or you know... not. I would actually prefer fewer "you are playing the game wrong, you all suck, play it my way or you're spoiled children" rants.

But hey, maybe that's just me.

Caliban said:

Yeesh. Lot of "You are playing the game wrong" accusations going around all of a sudden. If your character is taken out, and the DM confirms you aren't going to be able to play again for the rest of the night...so what if you leave early?

Especially if you have a significant other that you could be spending time with instead of twiddling your thumbs and possibly annoying the rest of the group by "re-enacting" whatever sidelined you. It's simply a more efficient (and enjoyable) use of your time.

Click to expand...

Thank you I really thought I had gone insane, since it seemed everyone thought I was wrong to not spend my night off not playing D&D but watching others do so...

GMforPowergamers said:

Thank you I really thought I had gone insane, since it seemed everyone thought I was wrong to not spend my night off not playing D&D but watching others do so...

Click to expand...

Some people seem to forget that this is a hobby, not a job. Or even a "sports team".

Under these circumstances, of course it's fair.

Once upon a time, I was agin' save-or-suck. It's boring for the player to essentially be out of the action, at least compared to mixing it up with Team Monster. I know it's annoying for me when I'm sidelined as a player. It was particularly bad in D&D 3.Xe as I recall and D&D 4e made some improvements that made it better in my view. D&D 5e steals quite a bit from D&D 4e in this regard in my experience.

When I started running more games online, I noticed that it wasn't an irregular occurrence for some folks to just observe the game without playing. For my regular games, I have a pool of 10 players from which only 5 can play in a given session and, for one-shots, I recruit 5 players and 2 alternates (who can jump in if someone's character dies). So for like 4+ hours, players of that game or just lurkers would happily watch as we did our thing, throwing a few comments in here and there especially when a particularly timely dick joke needed to be interjected. I ran a D&D 4e one-shot recently and one of the observers (a pick-up player I didn't know) had a character ready to go in case someone died, an event that came close about four times that session. At the end, I apologized to the player that he didn't get to play but his response was along the lines of "Not necessary, that game was super exciting to watch even if I didn't get to play. Next week, same time?"

I also noticed that there seems to be something of an unspoken agreement among my regular players that nobody should be forced to be in a suck situation for an unreasonable amount of time. For example, when Corbet was restrained by the feython summoned by the lizard shaman, who was somewhat away from the action in which the rest of the PCs were engaged, a special effort was made to break away from what they were doing to attack the shaman and disrupt its concentration. When Amyr had fallen to Mojo Risen and was making death saves (the ultimate in save-or-suck, right?) while being dragged away by a giant crocodile, Corbet broke away to save him at a personal cost. Nobody seems to want anyone else to be out of the action for very long. These are just two of many examples. I've read about plenty of groups who don't do this, who choose the tactically superior option to the one that best benefits the play experience.

So it seems like the mitigating factor for save-or-suck in these cases are players that are looking out for other players and a game that as fun to watch as it is to play, or at least approaches that. That tells me that if a player is complaining about save-or-suck (personality issues aside), there may be issues with these two factors if not other things. To that end it may be helpful to look at the overall play experience and how the players interact with each other and make improvements where necessary. And just like you ideally have a plan in place for when a PC dies, if save-or-suck happening to a player is a known issue, you need a plan for when it comes up. Some suggestions were made upthread.

As to whether such effects are fair, the answer as far as I am concerned is "yes." Provided the DM has telegraphed the possibility of such effects in advance and the players had a choice whether or not to face them. As to whether they're fun, that's going to depend on a lot of other factors as I note above. Rather than get all "get off my lawn" about these damn kids today with their short attention spans, it might be worth taking a good hard look at the play experience that is being produced at the table. If it's not fun to observe for a bit while you're out of the action, then it probably needs some work.

Caliban said:

Yeesh. Lot of "You are playing the game wrong" accusations going around all of a sudden. If your character is taken out, and the DM confirms you aren't going to be able to play again for the rest of the night...so what if you leave early?

Especially if you have a significant other that you could be spending time with instead of twiddling your thumbs and possibly annoying the rest of the group by "re-enacting" whatever sidelined you. It's simply a more efficient (and enjoyable) use of your time.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree. None of the commenters were there and know the dynamics of the group in play. I've had groups where sticking around for 4 hours of watching them play would not be fun nor particularly meaningful to them. So, I'm ready to give the guy the benefit of the doubt and hope he had a good time with the girlfriend.

ExploderWizard said:

Oh my. The issue at hand here isn't about fair or unfair. The issue is that it seems that a great many players these days cannot find fun in the organic consequences that arise from playing a GAME. A large part contributing to the issue is that the attention span of a three year old has apparently become normal. ME ME ME NOW NOW NOW. The root cause of these problems being adult babies who are utterly selfish with regards to their own fun. Grab all you can for yourself and screw everyone else and quit and go home if the group doesn't enable this behavior.

GROW UP!

I have gamed with actual children who were raised properly that handle games with more maturity than many so called adults. When my PC gets sidelined during the action, I sit back, enjoy my beverage & snacks, play the peanut gallery commenting on the ongoing action and enjoy the company. If the out of action time is going to be extended (beyond the current encounter), I ask the GM if there is an NPC I can play. It is so much fun playing an antagonistic NPC for a short time or even a monster. Getting to role play a dragon or a vampire lord for a little while is every bit as much fun as playing my PC.

The bottom line is being able to have fun with friends around the table regardless of what exactly is taking place within the game. I am committed to everyone around me having fun. To that end I try and contribute to group fun even if my character is currently being held, paralyzed, knocked out, or being slowly digested by a purple worm.

Click to expand...

This makes me think of people who want damage on a miss in combat because not doing damage in a round just isn't fun and is boring.

It is fair to use whatever abilities the NPCs have.

I wonder, though, from the NPC's viewpoint:
Their Rogue is locked down, do I need to give him another Finger of Death? (He's already been hit by a fist-full of them, and one finally stuck... sorta.) Maybe I should cast NPC's DPR King at him instead, while this limited window of opportunity is still open. He's likely to break the condition pretty quickly and promptly come after us for blood.

lowkey13 said:

It's rule utilitarinism. For overall optimal fun (feelings of accomplishment), there must be times where there isn't fun.

Click to expand...

Times? Maybe.

Most of an entire session? That's not going to enhance anyone's feeling of accomplishment.