D&D (2024) It Is 2025 And Save Or Suck Spells Still Suck (the fun out of the game)

UngainlyTitan said:

Arguably the least sucky version of Save and Suck D&D spells was the 4e versions where if memory serves one had progressing effects, up to 3 save before the really bad thing happened. People did not like it and it does add a lot of die rolls.

Click to expand...

Yeah, using afflictions would be the 4E but also able to go the other direction.

I'm not convinced that simple or minimal rolls is always the best gameplay design. Especially in this case where the problem is save or suck, some nuance would improve things.

Reynard said:

That just exacerbates the faulty D&D design of higher level casters having essentially useless low level slots.

Really casting needs a complete overhaul along with save or suck spells.

Click to expand...

Never had that problem, the type of spells you prepare and use might change, but stuff like Shield remain useful forever, Silvery Barbs is something that you'll want to cast often no matter the tier of play. Hell just dump all your low level slots at the start of the day on something like Gift of Alacrity so everyone in the party gets a nice buff.

And you could also improve some of the support spells to scale with character level by using something like Proficiency bonus as part of the spell. Take Longstrider as an example, suppose it's duration was a number of hours equal to your proficiency bonus. At higher tier's why wouldn't you drop some of those low level spell slots to give everyone in the party a nice little buff. Or allow False Life to target anyone, sure it's not a huge boost but if you have a ton of low level spell slots, no reason not to cast it freely because the THP will get used up.

DinoInDisguise said:

Because D&D is the most popular. And people naturally want to be part of what’s popular. Other systems don’t get the same level of critique because they don’t command the same cultural space.

Even D&D players do it. Critiquing D&D while still using it allows players to both belong to the dominant culture and signal their discerning taste. “I play D&D, but I’m not like those D&D players. I’ve refined it.”

And those who don’t even play it? They still show up to discuss it. Why? Because it’s popular.

It's popularity all the way down.

Click to expand...

This.
. 5E big screw up was following 3E save system with very bad savibg throws.

4E took pre 3E as inspiration. What makes save or suck si good is how reliable they are vs saves. Espicially vs buckets of hp.

They shpikd fail 70% of the tine or more vs a good save. Bad save 50/50.
Risk/reward ratio is off. Buffing and direct damage could be other uses of low level spells.

Direct damage could also scale like 3.5 it wasn't broken there. Or scale same rate as cantrips at least.

Micah Sweet said:

Easier to hit for other people.

Click to expand...

Yes other people need to try to hit him and NOT hit the grappler in the process. That is not easier IMO, in most cases it is actually more difficult.

The attack roll is an abstraction that your attack hits the person you are targeting and does not hit anyone or anything else.

Let's talk about real life: Imagine I am attacked IRL and I am grappling (wrestling) with the attacker. You see me get attacked from across the street pull out your .45 to try to shoot the mugger. Is it really easier to hit him then if he was just standing there alone? Now let's consider to chance to hit is a chance to hit the mugger and at the same time NOT hit me who is grappling with him. I don't think it is easier (i.e. advantage), I actually think it is harder (cover or disadvantage) to hit him.

Now if we start looking at specific weapons in - you are using a stilleto or a garrot ... ok maybe it is easier to walk up and use that weapon on someone being grappled .... but swinging a maul or shooting a crossbow or musket from 50 feet away it definitely isn't any easier IMO.