Epic Fight turns into Epic Farce

[Fenes]

We rarely use/see those kind of spells/powers in our 3.0 campaign. Therea re enough monsters and foes who do not depend on such SoD powers to pick.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm not a fan of systems where death is unlikely, as IMO this adds to the enjoyment factor of succeeding. It's the losses along the way that make your successes so much sweeter.

That's a strawman. It's not about death being unlikely. It's about death due to a single bad die roll being unlikely.

Dying in an epic, pitched battle with the enemy is a satisfying experience (generally). Dying because you crap out on a single roll in the first round is not. There's a big difference there.

 

[Fifth Element]

This is all very nice as written, but what happens when not one of you players fails a save but half the party?

Or, as in the OP, almost the entire party?

 

[Nifft]

You know what I just realized? I sorta liked 3e's save or die stuff, or at least I didn't mind it. But I hated it's save or sit out stuff.

IMHO "save or die" is just a special case of "save or sit out" -- and yes, I too dislike both, for basically the same reasons you do.

Actually, let me revise that: at least with "save or die" the player can go make a new character. With "save or sit out" there's nothing to do but watch.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Urbannen]

I agree with most of the criticisms of save-or-die and save-or-sit-out effects. As some have already mentioned, long duration fear effects and the mind flayer's mind blast are the worst offenders. I sometimes wonder what the designers were thinking.

Right now my players are really only threatened by save-or-die effects, which means that I'm keeping them in my 3.5 game. I've gently suggested that if they don't like save-or-die, we don't have to play D&D, but they want to continue. *shrug*

I've done some things in my campaign to mitigate the effects of save-or-die and save-or-sit-out:
1. All characters get the Leadership feat for free. If the main character is killed, flees, or is stunned, the player has another character he can play with. The one player/one character paradigm doesn't work well, IMO.

2. Raise Dead can be used on victims of death magic. It requires a 13th level cleric to raise the victim of a CR 8 Bodak or a 9th level cleric's Slay Living spell. Bad game design IMO.

3. Fear and stun effects do not stack. If the character is hit with 4 rounds of stun from a Mind Blast one round and then hit with 5 more rounds of stun after that, he doesn't have to go through 8 rounds (4-1+5) of stun, "just" 5.

These rules have saved the flow of my game.

 

[tomBitonti]

[threadhijack]

You know what I just realized? I sorta liked 3e's save or die stuff, or at least I didn't mind it. But I hated it's save or sit out stuff.

Having your character die during an adventure is part and parcel of this game we play, irrespective of the edition. What really stinks, I think, is when a player is forced to sit on his hands because his character is running away, held for 42 rounds, or otherwise marginalized for what-can-be a significant amount of real time.

Can you say "fun sponge"?

[endhijack]

Wis

Hear hear. Having to sit out any number of rounds, when any single round can take a long while, definitely makes for a very sad panda.

 

[cangrejoide]

That's a strawman. It's not about death being unlikely. It's about death due to a single bad die roll being unlikely.

Dying in an epic, pitched battle with the enemy is a satisfying experience (generally). Dying because you crap out on a single roll in the first round is not. There's a big difference there.

This.

There is no problem if the main heroes lose to the villain if the fight lasted a while and due to bad roll or bad judgement. But when the whole encounter can be marred by a single bad die roll, well that just isn't fun.

Don't you have it backwards? Your PCs should not automatically be entitled to resist the fear effect simply because they are supposed to be heroes. Rather, I feel that they are heroes exactly because it is their stats that allow them to perform heroic stuff, such as resist the medusa's gaze or aforementioned fear effect, penetrate the dragon's high AC, deal enough damage to deplete the tarrasque's high hp reserve, dodge the enemy wizard's fireball and other equally heroic stunts.

At the end of the day, it should be what you achieve, and how you attained them that decides whether you can consider yourself a hero or not. Did you slay the dragon and rescue the princess at the end of the day? If so, you are a hero. If you failed for whatever reason, then sadly, you are a zero.

I agree completely, but none of this has to do with just rolling badly on the first round. Even your priest with his + 134 to will saves can roll a '1' on a feeblemind spell. So if your priest with +134 to will saves rolls a '1', does that make him a zero? How about the legendary figther who has slain demons and dragons everywhere, rolls a '1' to a the main villain's toady slay living spell?

it is just not good. That can automatically zap the fun of any game. The game is supposed to be fun, but when the rules dont promote this kind of game: Rules=Epic-fail!

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Or, as in the OP, almost the entire party?

It happens and you move on. Maybe it's a bad encounter? Honestly, not trying to be insulting. Different classes have different saves specifically to avoid this. If you have multiple monsters all using multiple save spells for different saves, then it's not a good encounter.

Or, if in the fight, you just roll a whole bunch of ones...well, how is that a save or die problem? The consequences would be just as dire if you were doing anything else and rolled a one.

 

[Bullgrit]

For the record, the three natural 1s were for the monk 6, cleric 6, and cleric 4 -- they needed to roll a 2, 3, and 4 respectively.

Bullgrit

 

[evildmguy]

I really want to know the demographics of all of the people who have responded that "save or sit out" effects are okay. What do you do during that time? Is sitting there listening to others play as fun as playing yourself? How often do you play? How long did you travel to play?

As for myself, I play with with people who all have professional full times jobs, most are married, and some have kids. We get one night a week to play for about four hours, maybe four and a half. Some of them travel thirty five minutes to play, so that pushes their time commitment up higher. (I host as the DM.)

I also play in a group that meets perhaps three times a year over a weekend to game. We probably play twelve hours or so.

Anymore in gaming, I dislike "save or sit out" effects because of our group. My players are looking for something fun to do, and they have chosen gaming. To have them have to sit there for more than ten minutes without being involved in the actions is bad. More than that, and it's almost rude. Some of them don't have tons of time and if it isn't fun, they have many other commitments they could do instead. As the DM, I am looking to entertain them. I don't see how sitting there and doing nothing is fun.

Maybe that's just me.

edg