Epic Fight turns into Epic Farce

[WizarDru]

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.

Nope, it's not just you. In fact, my gaming situation almost exactly mirrors your own. Over the years, we've developed a phrase: "Sooner or later, everybody rolls a '1'."*

The Save-or-Sit Out situation is one of the sacred cows that 4E butchered, more or less. Few effects completely devastate a player's experience so much. 3.XE does much to allow players to mitigate such effects, but they're still there. Often, such threats fall in one of two categories: A) Warded and Irrelevant or B) Unexpected and Very Dangerous. Case in point: A Bodak is irrelevant to a party armed with Death Ward spells, but TPK territory for one that doesn't. Either way, an encounter with a Bodak isn't thrilling, it's NO FUN.

In short, Save-or Sit Out spells are the same as Global Thermonuclear War...the only way to win is NOT TO PLAY. And for clarity's sake, I consider a 'Slay Living' or 'Finger of Death' spell to be a Save-or-Sit Out, as well. At the level those spells start getting tossed around, the party usually has access to raise spells...making death pretty much an inconvenient status more than anything else.

 

[WizarDru]

Mostly low to mid level play...you are talking about 3.5, right? I've never found enough interest to push past a mid-level game of D&D as at high levels it bogs down and I have a range of games my group enjoys playing more than high level D&D.

That explains why you don't see as much of problem with SOSO effects, IMHO. Having run a group in 3.5 from 1st to 28th level, I can assure you...once you get to a certain point (usually starting in the low double-digits), SOSOs become extremely common. Just for laughs, I went and did a search fo CR12 creatures just from the SRD. What I found was that virtually all of the results featured at least one SOSO effect, some with multiples. This isn't factoring things like NPCs, templated or classed monsters with access to similar abilities or spells.

 

[Imaro]

That explains why you don't see as much of problem with SOSO effects, IMHO. Having run a group in 3.5 from 1st to 28th level, I can assure you...once you get to a certain point (usually starting in the low double-digits), SOSOs become extremely common. Just for laughs, I went and did a search fo CR12 creatures just from the SRD. What I found was that virtually all of the results featured at least one SOSO effect, some with multiples. This isn't factoring things like NPCs, templated or classed monsters with access to similar abilities or spells.

So let me ask a question here... is it that the concept of SOSO and SOD are bad in and of themselves or is it the frequency in which they start to appear at high level play that irritates people?

IMHO, if they aren't too frequent... I think they can really be fun as a heightening of danger mechanic for adventurers and also as emphasis on a monster that is not meant to be taken lightly.

 

[MrMyth]

Has anyone else found this to be a problem (probably not often, but even once can completely screw up a campaign -- it's a route to TPK)? Does 4th edition "fix" this? If so, how?

4E fixes it after a fashion - few monsters have effects that will hit an entire group with a completely disabling effect that lasts an extended period of time.

Dragons, for example, have an effect that can shut down the group (if it hits)... for 1 round.

Other enemies might have an effect that removes one character for the fight for, on average, 2 rounds.

You still have an ebb of flow of characters being feared/stunned/etc - but you don't have entire parties removed from the entire combat.

So the issue has been mitigated, as far as I can tell. I can't see a similar scenario taking place in 4E.

 

[WizarDru]

So let me ask a question here... is it that the concept of SOSO and SOD are bad in and of themselves or is it the frequency in which they start to appear at high level play that irritates people?

IMHO, if they aren't too frequent... I think they can really be fun as a heightening of danger mechanic for adventurers and also as emphasis on a monster that is not meant to be taken lightly.

Speaking for myself, it's the frequency. Virtually every high-level monster after a certain level has them, and usually as their big-gun. The first several rounds of a high-level combat are usually an exchange of saving throws. Now, as you get higher level, you also get higher level defenses...but this creates a whole 'buff cycle' meta-game aspect which I personally find unappealing. It also creates a situation where the magical-haves tend to dominate certain aspects of the game, which also is not to my liking.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So let me ask a question here... is it that the concept of SOSO and SOD are bad in and of themselves or is it the frequency in which they start to appear at high level play that irritates people?

IMHO, if they aren't too frequent... I think they can really be fun as a heightening of danger mechanic for adventurers and also as emphasis on a monster that is not meant to be taken lightly.

Yes, the frequency is certainly a problem. The optimal frequency might not have to be "0 occurrences per adventuring career", but how do you balance an extremely asymmetric power against all others?

"Save or Sit"-Effects provide a means to bypass hit points _and_ take you out of a fight. Means to bypass hit points can be fine - disarm, trip or sunder can become annoying, but at least you can go on. Dying after a few rounds of combat against a tough enemy might not be among the greatest experiences to have, but at least you know you actively tried your best.
Combining both leads to problems.

And how can you control the frequency? If you give out Save or Sit effets to some monsters and not to others, who can guarantee that a DM doesn't somehow use only the SoD monsters? (I suppose strict advice that he shouldn't do it.)

I think even 4E might have room for "save or die" - but it shouldn't be part of a monsters abilities. It would have to be a "this adventure only special circumstance" that can't be replicated easily - and needs to be rewarded accordingly...

 

[Fifth Element]

Uhm...wrong. People go to horror movies, haunted houses, ride roller coasters, etc. for this type of adrenaline rush all the time (especially, like a rpg, these are reasonably safe circumstances to experience them in.). If they didn't like it then why subject themselves to it?

But those examples aren't based on dread, they're based on excitement. An adrenaline rush based on dread would be when you know you've broken the law, and you see a police car pull into your driveway. You'll get a rush, but you won't like it.

The save-or-die is based on dread because you can only lose. If you make the save, nothing changes. You gain nothing. If you fail the save, you have to stop playing the game for a time. You can't gain anything, you can only lose.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But those examples aren't based on dread, they're based on excitement. An adrenaline rush based on dread would be when you know you've broken the law, and you see a police car pull into your driveway. You'll get a rush, but you won't like it.

The save-or-die is based on dread because you can only lose. If you make the save, nothing changes. You gain nothing. If you fail the save, you have to stop playing the game for a time. You can't gain anything, you can only lose.

What if there was something to win with "Save or Die" or "Save or Sit"?, I wonder...

Imagine a spell like Hold Monster or Finger of Death - if there was some way to redirect the spell to the attacker after a succeseful save, that could be interesting. Of course, those spells flavor doesn't really make describing this happening easy.

Maybe something like this (3E rules):
Hold Person: As your enemys attempt to cloud your mind fails, you renew your willpower and your self-confidence - gain 3d8+5 temporary hit points and a +2 moral bonus to attacks and damage for 1 minute.

Destruction: Evil forces tries to corrupt your body, but with a feat of strength and willpower, you overcome it and send it back to your foe - your opponent must immediately make a save against his own spell or suffer its effects. (or 1d6 points of damage per your level)

 

[evildmguy]

Nope, it's not just you. In fact, my gaming situation almost exactly mirrors your own. Over the years, we've developed a phrase: "Sooner or later, everybody rolls a '1'."*

The Save-or-Sit Out situation is one of the sacred cows that 4E butchered, more or less. Few effects completely devastate a player's experience so much. 3.XE does much to allow players to mitigate such effects, but they're still there. Often, such threats fall in one of two categories: A) Warded and Irrelevant or B) Unexpected and Very Dangerous. Case in point: A Bodak is irrelevant to a party armed with Death Ward spells, but TPK territory for one that doesn't. Either way, an encounter with a Bodak isn't thrilling, it's NO FUN.

In short, Save-or Sit Out spells are the same as Global Thermonuclear War...the only way to win is NOT TO PLAY. And for clarity's sake, I consider a 'Slay Living' or 'Finger of Death' spell to be a Save-or-Sit Out, as well. At the level those spells start getting tossed around, the party usually has access to raise spells...making death pretty much an inconvenient status more than anything else.

That's the other funny thing I noticed. About the time that SoS things happen, it's laughably easy to come back from the dead. When we were playing an epic level campaign and a character died, as long as one other party member survived, they could raise everyone back. No loss of anything, other than money. I don't know if those two things are supposed to balance each other out or what they are supposed to do.

The other thing I like about 4E is that it keeps everyone involved. Even when the rogue is off scouting for traps, the others can do things. They can help. It isn't spotlighting anymore and I think that's a good thing, although I can see why some players wouldn't want this to happen. Whether it's because the DMG offers better advice that wasn't considered before or the designers are trying to keep focus on the action, either way 4E has been a lot of fun for everyone to play.

edg

 

[evildmguy]

What if there was something to win with "Save or Die" or "Save or Sit"?, I wonder...

Imagine a spell like Hold Monster or Finger of Death - if there was some way to redirect the spell to the attacker after a succeseful save, that could be interesting. Of course, those spells flavor doesn't really make describing this happening easy.

Maybe something like this (3E rules):
Hold Person: As your enemys attempt to cloud your mind fails, you renew your willpower and your self-confidence - gain 3d8+5 temporary hit points and a +2 moral bonus to attacks and damage for 1 minute.

Destruction: Evil forces tries to corrupt your body, but with a feat of strength and willpower, you overcome it and send it back to your foe - your opponent must immediately make a save against his own spell or suffer its effects. (or 1d6 points of damage per your level)

I think part of 4E design was to use hit points as the resource it is. So, instead of a hold person, where it's SoSo, it causes psychic damage as it tries to hold the character. Only if they are reduced to 0 hit points are less, are they actually held.

What that means, though, is that lots of 3.x spells need to have some damage component to them, which would be a lot of work for very little pay off, imo. However, that could be done. I would gladly use 3.x (Paizo's Pathfinder) if this was the case, that hit points were another resource to be used and all damage had to be represented by hit points.

That could a good way to get rid of SoSo effects.

edg