D&D 5E (2014) Is it fair to cast save-or-suck spells on the players?

[dagger]

The players and DM are veterans at our table and expect spells to behave in a certain way since we have been playing religiously since 1e.

 

[Sadras]

I once got told I was being a jerk for leaving a game early... the reason I left was I was imprisoned (per spell) and PCs had no way to get me out. I went and called my girlfriend and we went to the movies... (it was less than 30mins into a 5 hour game) after the movie I called and no one had a way to get me out yet...so I came back the next week with a new character. The DM said it was rude I should have stayed (I did stick around for about 15 mins after I was imprisoned) The thing was I was the only spellcaster, I knew no one could free me.

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.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I have to admit, I am having a little difficulty following this argument.

So, there was a belief that "save or die" was not completely fair, or fun, or what have you. Even though it worked for many tables for a very long time. Without having an opinion on that, I can say that things change, opinions change, and so on. Fair enough.

So now, almost everything is "save or suck." Okay. And the complaint is that ... save or suck is unfair?

I believe that the part you are missing is "Not being able to engage the game is unfun" Now there is a sliding scale here. I might say "Hey I can play on my phone, go to the bathroom grab a bite to eat and be back in half an hour then sit for 5ish miniutes before I can resume play" and be fine with it 35 minutes sitting out AOK while someone else might say "Look it's been 15minutes I want to play" and others still could sit for 2 hours perfectly fine. It might even depend on the night...

It comes down to playstyles. Either challenges are real, in which case players get satisfaction from overcoming the challenges, or they are illusory, in which case the players aren't ever in any real danger.

I agree like 85% I think that there is a middle ground. SOme challenges are illusory and some are real, as long as the player can't tell the difference most of the time they can enjoy the satisfaction (even if from time to time they see behind the curtain)

There's nothing wrong with the second, if that's what you enjoy (just like, from a certain perspective, there was nothing wrong with a Monty Haul campaign if that's what the players enjoyed). But what I'm not understanding is the demand that the game be played with illusory challenges.

see my problem is the 'sit out' not the 'you loose'. If you banish the fighter who can then not get back to the dungeon it sin't that he lost, it's that now what does he do.

My 14th level Bard was disintegrated by a beholder last month. Was it fair? Yes! Was it cool? Yes! Was it funny? Yes!

yup... I have 100 stories like that fun, funny, badass you name it cool deaths are cool. I also have dozens of BS deaths that annoy me still. However the important difference is fun. If you are having fun your death isn't a big deal.

The DM was correct...

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

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[JonnyP71]

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

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.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ugh.

my thoughts exactly...just for the opposite reason

No one likes getting killed or sidelined. But c'mon, really? If you are a bench player on a sports team, would you go to a movie during a game, and then call the coach afterwards and say, "Hey! Didn't need me during the game, did you?"

I guess that depends, being bench is kinda common, my understanding as an out of shape non sports player is that you sit the bench then get called back up to play again. It's more like sitting out while your character is in another room or waiting your turn in initiative. My play ended... I wasn't benched I was out of the game...

If you are in a group of friends, and they start talking about something you have no interest in (RomComs?), do you go see a movie instead, and then call them a few hours later and say, "Hey, did you ever change the conversation?"

no, I would be quite for a minute or two then try to interject something I am interested it... (by the by love romcoms)

Yeah, it's rude.

I think it would be infinitly more rude to expect a friend to sit through hours of a conversation he has no part in...

all of your examples are "Would you leave game if your character was stunned for 3d6 rounds" not "Would you leave game because your character is stuck with no way out"

Players get sidelined. There are many things to do if you get sidelined, including, but not limited to, the following:

ok...this should be funny

1. Every time your turn comes up, dramatically re-enact the way in which you are sidelined.

since the combat is over when would 'my turn' be...should I every few minutes for HOURs interrupt game to reenact?

2. With the DM's permission, take control of a monster or NPC and join the combat.

there was no combat, it was a trap, and I actually did ask but the DM is very against it

3. If you think your character will be permanently sidelined, start rolling a new one.

Yup... I could have done that...in fact since we meet every week I did that inbetween weeks

4. Work on the party maps, logs, loot sheets, etc.

no one wants me doing any of that

5. Interact with the rest of the people at the table and enjoy their company. After all, it's a social occasion. You might not be an active participant, but you will still have stories to tell.

you mean interrupt game?

The possibilities are limitless. Time with friends is scarce.

since we meet every week for years before and after that I disagree

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.

well first I did ask if there was a chance of me getting out, and the DM confirmed not, so I left...second yes I was selfishly not wanting to spend hours doing nothing for 1 failed roll (well 2 I had Magic Ressitence 20% and a save)

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.

he spend way more then 6 hours working on the game...but I had no way to play it.

On these two points, the excerpted part you didn't quote answers your first objection-

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

I agree, but the point is that when no fun over rules the fun you need to decide to change something...

Yes, being sidelined isn't as fun in that moment. But victory is only sweet (fun) knowing that you accomplished something.

yes, but some 'fails' hurt the fun more.

Which also, in part, addresses your second comment. It's like a Monty Haul campaign. These can be fine, especially for young players. The reason they have a (IMO, deservedly) bad reputation is that the "winning" is meaningless without the possibility of losing. And not just the illusory possibility. The reason that most Monty Haul campaigns collapse after a while is that most people get tired of a lack of consequences in their games. Illusions cannot persist forever.

on this we agree

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[S'mon]

My 14th level Bard was disintegrated by a beholder last month. Was it fair? Yes! Was it cool? Yes! Was it funny? Yes!

Join the club - last month I disintegrated my son's 17th level Wizard - and this was Classic D&D,
he'd been playing several years to get that high! However he had his wizard's Fighter son in the same battle, so he could still participate.

 

[Gadget]

Given the great lengths that 5e has gone to to tone down the "Save or Suck/Die" spells in this edition (Concentration, save every round, etc) and the fact that the PCs are 19th level, I have little sympathy for the complaining player. Every table has their own play style and idiosyncrasies, here is what I can perceive as the "problems", if problems they could be called:

1) The party seems really magic light for a 19th level super deadly fight, having only one full spell caster (cleric). This caused them to have to use unusual tactics to counter-act this disadvantage, such as spreading out to mitigate AoE and employing anti-magic fields. This in turn, prevented or hindered the overlapping support and synergy that high level parties can usually employ to help one another (numerous ways to grant advantage on saves/attacks, auras, help action, etc.). That is the way the cookie crumbled I guess.

2) If there is a flaw in the System (some might see it otherwise), it is that Save or Suck spells really are not that effective when you first get them, the target will likely make the save either right away or very soon; however, when you have a higher proficiency bonus, it becomes very difficult to save against the same spell it it is not a strong save for the target. The corollary to this is that Saves don't really rise all that much unless you are proficient. The upshot being that Save or Suck effects are going to be a lot more of an issue for PCs at high level not only because they are more prevalent in the upper tier, but also because PCs are generally more vulnerable as well, as the discrepancy between the Difficulty of the Save and the PC's Save bonus grows. This can be mitigated by a lot of character abilities, feats, advantage granting, not using spell casting opponents or making them very rare, etc.