Dear post#3132721, don't blame me. I'm just the interpreter.

[Dracorat]

I disapprove of thread necromancy also.

Thread Resurrection however, well, let's have at it!

 

[Felon]

1. I did said many "many casters don't feel" based on the above poll results.
2. Half don't have agood fort save? Including those immune to most save or die? And those who's Con bonuses push thier fort saves to good range or better? If so, that sounds like a fine argument for most monsters being a touch too resilaint.

1. No, you did not refer to the poll at all in the post I quoted.
2. Yes, some monsters are resistant or immune to save-or-die. Then again, for just about every attack out there, there's some degree of resistance or immunity available. That's the nature of the game, not some specific evidence for this arguement of yours.

When that is the Only stratagy to get the spells to work, it stops being basic and those spells become jokes IMHO.

And what strategy beyond snapping one's fingers wouldn't be a joke? When you say "basic" do you really mean to say that they shouldn't require any more strategy than said finger-snapping?

If save-or-die effects can be counted on to one-shot targets consistently without any kind of tactics, then any spell or attack that wasn't a save-or-die would become a joke. Monsters would become jokes. Battles would become jokes. So bearing all that in mind, what kind of vision do you have for how things should work? How routinely should save-or-die spells succeed? 50%? More? How often is often enough without making other forms of offensive spells look like jokes by comparison?

 

[Driddle]

*BUMP*

Stop that!