Have Your Cake and Eat it Too - Save-or-Die Idea

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

On a related note, I hope there are fewer AoE damage spells in 4E. I hated the way that you couldn't run a squad of enemies (like 10+) in 3E without them all getting instantly toasted by fireballs. It meant virtually any challenging encounter would be one or two monsters.

Which doesn't work out well either, because of the "actions per round" discrepence. 3-5 enemies worked best, I think. (Unless we're talking about Dragons, in which one is basically always sufficient)

10+ enemies probably suffered most due to AoE because there Level/HD/CR to still make it a fair encounter meant they also had low HPs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now at this point, if they're not already doing things this way in 4E, they're unlikely to start now. However, there's no reason spells/abilities that work this way can't be added to the game, officially or homebrewed.

So would you use abilties like these? Are they great, flawed but usable, or completely pointless?

From what I can see, this is some pretty good work. I like the idea that petrification, for example, can be modelled by Dex loss (until you turn to stone).

OTOH, I don't think that every "death effect" in the game should include multiple (dice based) save opportunities.

RC

 

[Elemmakil]

Sounds like inappropriate metagaming to me.

If a target goes down from a save or die effect, the caster should assume the target's dead and move on to the next target. If it ends up being a TPK, then the bad guy finds out there's still some people left alive (albeit unconscious) and can finish them off.

Most casters probably have at least some clue how their spells work. Cheesy or not, they'd be idiots to not take down a vulnerable target, if they have a minion capable of doing that.

Using something like magic missile to finish off someone already in the negatives is, IMHO, super-cheesy and defeats the whole point behind modifying the way save-or-die spells work in the first place. If you believe the save-or-die system needs fluffing then you shouldn't be undermining that fluffing with cheesy coup-de-graces...

It is exactly why that modification of save-or-die spells doesn't work. They're really still pretty much save-or-die effects. I don't have a problem with using severely debilitating effects and then having a weak minion act as the executioner, but it is important to acknowledge that they are still really save or die effects.

The proposed system very elegantly avoids this problem. Kudos.

One comment: I'd have the miscellaneous effect on a failed save occur on a successful save, too. Otherwise, it is conceivably better for a target to fail the save if they have a nearby ally to alleviate to alleviate the effect rather than take the extra damage/slow effect/whatever.

In essence, I'd change "1) Relatively minor effect if the target resists" to "1) Relatively minor effect no matter what."

I'm not sure if this would hold for some SoD-ish effects, such as Hold Person (the 3.5 solution is really terrible, IMO. It actively encourages Coup de Gracing ASAP). For these, however, damage (or dex damage, or negative levels, or some other abstraction) work fine.

I see two flaws:

• Coup de Graces: Its still pretty easy to pull the typical debilitator-executioner combo. I have nothing against that combo, but it only takes one unlucky roll: caster delays until right before tank acts. Caster casts SoD. Tank Coup de Graces. Maybe they could just make Coup de Graces themselves harder.
• You still may be able to take someone out of the battle with one action. It's harder, but still there. I'm not too concerned with this one, though.

I like both this and variations on the point system (SoD's just cause Con/Dex/negative energy damage). This preserves both tactics and flavour, but with a few of the flaws. The point systems really only preserve the flavour, although they also have their own tactical uses.

 

[IceFractal]

One comment: I'd have the miscellaneous effect on a failed save occur on a successful save, too. Otherwise, it is conceivably better for a target to fail the save if they have a nearby ally to alleviate to alleviate the effect rather than take the extra damage/slow effect/whatever.

That's covered by step 5, although it could be better worded. If they fail the save but avoid death, they take a more major effect. For instance, if the minor effect is 3d6+1/level damage, the major effect might be 1d6/level. Something fairly significant, so you don't get off scot-free if you cheat death.

Re: Coup-de-Grace; since they're stunned during the "dying" period, they're not vulnerable to CdG, although they could be sneak attacked a lot.

Re: Taking people out of battle. True, since the "dying" period does take someone out for at least a round and potentially several, it's a potent effect. Should be ok as long as death spells remain mid to high level, but it probably wouldn't work for "at-will" effects.