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

[Hussar]

Frankly, Banishment is one of the first spells I take on any caster that has it available. It's just too effective and useful.

Few monsters have a decent charisma save. And if they are extra-planar, it can effectively be a "save or die" spell. Plus you can affect multiple creatures with it at higher levels. And if you somehow get stranded on another plane - you can Banish yourself back to your home plane!

But - you have to maintain concentration for 10 rounds to make it permanent. So even if it is cast on a PC (when they are on another plane) they can be returned if you can break the caster's concentration within 10 rounds.

You're absolutely right and I forgot about that. Shouldn't get my mouth going before reading the rules.

I withdraw my issues.

 

[Fanaelialae]

So this is an interesting question, if you unpack it. Phrased this way, you end up with a Monty Haul campaign, where the DM is nothing more than an enabler to the PCs. And, again, if that's what the table wants, then that's fine.

But not all tables want that. Various tables have various social compacts with the DM regarding "putting the fingers on the scales of justice," and/or "fudging," but your analysis would seem to indicate that the DM is supposed to always fudge in favor of player victory- because defeat (or a loss to a save or suck spell) would mean a lack of fun for that player, at that time.

But imagine you are a particular player that enjoys overcoming challenges. Let's say that, to use an example, you wanted to beat someone at chess. And then you beat him. Great! But if you learn that the player let you win ... not so great. The challenge was illusory. There was no thrill in victory, because the outcome was pre-ordained.

Same here. Some players (yes, even beer & pretzel & working 60 hours a week players) only enjoy victory as a counterpoint to defeat. Why bother planning out a battle and marshaling your resources correctly and, um, strategery if you know the DM will bail you out with some deus ex machina?

No DM wants players sitting and doing nothing for 40 minutes. But most players don't want their DMs cheating for them.

Just like no player wants to waste 10 hours of DM prep time, but most DMs won't try and railroad the players.

And, should a player be sidelined for a significant portion of the game (sent to Donjon or the Void, perhaps), then the DM should have alternatives available, including running the monsters in combat, running NPCs, or, if it is a high-fatality campaign, having each player have some backup PCs.

This is a false dichotomy. There are plenty of ways to challenge players without indefinitely sidelining them or fudging anything. You can certainly run a campaign that avoids sidelining without it becoming Monty Haul.

For example, GM's DM could have placed a trap in the dungeon that simply dealt damage or perhaps removed a limb. I don't know anyone who considers PC dismemberment to be taking it easy on the players.

It's not difficult to avoid sidelining the players if you don't want to, it just takes a little bit of forethought. For example, I enjoy using the Deck of Many Things, but I've never cared much for Donjon or the Void (random chance to be forced to roll up a new character - whoopdedoo). So I created my own version of the deck. For example, in the case of Donjon a randomly determined limb of the character's is entombed. The PC can reattach the limb - IF he can find it. Now the player has to play an adventurer who struggles with a missing limb, and has an instant hook to go searching for the limb, which is far more interesting in my book (admittedly, the player could choose to simply retire the character and reroll). I also changed some of the good cards. In the case of The Sun, rather than gaining 50,000 xp, the PC instead gains enough xp to put them halfway through their next level. Because while it isn't gamebreaking, I don't really want 6th level characters to suddenly become 10th level characters with a single lucky draw.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with abilities that can sideline characters so long as they are used with a modicum of restraint. I have a rule for encounter design where I won't throw more full casters at the party than the party itself possesses. The reason for this is that I don't consider it to be fair unless the characters are built to counter casters, which I've yet to see my players do (and as I stated in an earlier post, I draw a distinction between the DM playing unfairly and the NPCs doing so). Admittedly, I have ignored that rule on at least one occasion, but only with good reason. At the time the party (a druid, a rogue, and two warrior types) unwittingly recovered the phylactery of a powerful lich (the BBEG of the campaign which would follow this one). Unsurprisingly, the lich was eager to recover it, so after observing them to determine their capabilities he sent two Helmed Horrors and two undead Mages to steal the phylactery. The enemy approached under cover of night and wrecked the party. The druid in particular was very frustrated that the mages kept counterspelling his spells (and I can't really blame him). In fairness they put up a very good fight, managing to kill both mages and one of the Helmed Horrors. However, that was all that was needed as the construct took the phylactery and flew away, and the party was unable to pursue (all but one were unconscious, and I think the remaining guy was very low on hp). After the session they expressed to me that they were very frustrated with that encounter (it was the first real defeat they'd had in that campaign) and they felt like it was unbeatable. I explained to them that there was a very powerful bad guy out there that wanted this item, and that he had dispatched agents who he was confident could recover it. As such I had stacked the deck against them in this encounter. It was hypothetically winnable (they came reasonably close), but it had not been designed to be fair. However, the mission was to recover the item; the enemy's priority was to recover the item, not to kill them. (The lich didn't care whether the PCs lived or died, so long as he got his phylactery back.) They were satisfied with that answer. As the DM I could have had the lich dispatch a dozen Helmed Horrors and a dozen undead Mages. Given that, as DM, I have carte blanche to give the lich any resources I want, I could have even justified it. But it would have been lame as hell. I guess what I'm getting at is that this old adage applies to DMing just as much as anything else: "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

 

[Sadras]

Your reference to a climactic battle seems much narrower than what I was thinking of.

Fair enough, I wasn't being particularly clear. In truth I had also forgotten about the slogfest that could actually occur in 4e. It has been a while.

 

[Sadras]

I mean, these were your posts in this thread:

You really need to stop quoting my first post - that has been explained multiple times in this thread.

I mean, @JonnyP71 calls GM4PG ignorant and rude, and I'm missing where you have contradicted that.

Post #167

Yes, GM was right for leaving that table/group. I agree with both you and PG there.

You later actually double down and claim that it's because of a Bad DM (TM)

That is not an example of doubling down on my initial post.

DM's truly, truly need to get over themselves.

Good grief

 

[Hussar]

You really need to stop quoting my first post - that has been explained multiple times in this thread.



Post #167




That is not an example of doubling down on my initial post.




Good grief

Ah. Apologies for missing that in the wall of text you posted.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This is a false dichotomy. There are plenty of ways to challenge players without indefinitely sidelining them or fudging anything. You can certainly run a campaign that avoids sidelining without it becoming Monty Haul.

For example, GM's DM could have placed a trap in the dungeon that simply dealt damage or perhaps removed a limb. I don't know anyone who considers PC dismemberment to be taking it easy on the players.

At the higher levels when these types of spells are being slung around dismemberment is a joke too. Missing an arm? Just have a kindly party member do you a solid and finish you off. Cast resurrection and come back with a brand new arm and just a few temporary penalties that go away in a couple days. No worries.

Absurd? Why certainly, but since there are no lasting consequences involved with dying, using death as limb regeneration makes sense. Once you make actually getting killed no big deal by the rules of the game then any lesser physical harm becomes little more than a joke.

 

[Fanaelialae]

At the higher levels when these types of spells are being slung around dismemberment is a joke too. Missing an arm? Just have a kindly party member do you a solid and finish you off. Cast resurrection and come back with a brand new arm and just a few temporary penalties that go away in a couple days. No worries.

Absurd? Why certainly, but since there are no lasting consequences involved with dying, using death as limb regeneration makes sense. Once you make actually getting killed no big deal by the rules of the game then any lesser physical harm becomes little more than a joke.

It's about as permanent as a spell like imprisonment, which is just a few spells away from being reversed. And I'm not talking about the levels at which this is only a brief nuisance, obviously (we're talking about players being sidelined for serious lengths of time).

In GM's case, I think he was only 6th or 7th level. He had to wait for the DMPC to release him several sessions later.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fanaelialae]

Interesting. You see, at my main table, the idea that the players would be shocked that there was an unbeatable encounter would be ... shocking. Not everything is winnable. Just like in life, sometimes you avoid, sometimes you run, and sometimes (sometimes!) there are clever ways to deal with it that don't involve slugging it out.

I honestly can't imagine my main table complaining to me that an encounter was unbeatable, or too hard. Because they have the agency to try and get the heck out of there. However, if I told them that I had set up an encounter that was specifically too hard for them, but that they couldn't die ... just to take an item and advance the plot? Yeah, that wouldn't fly so well.

On the other hand, when I teach D&D to the kids in the area, I do take it easy. I don't sideline any characters, and I make sure that each person can shine. Because that is the point they are at in D&D. And that's fine too. I want them to learn, to have fun, and to go on and run their own tables.

As I stated in the post you quoted, and in pretty much every post I do, different tables have different social compacts. I am glad what you do works ... for you. What you do would certainly not work for my table.


EDIT- To be clear, I am not being critical of your choices, or your decisions. That scenario sounds like it might be fun for some groups. But it wouldn't be fun for my group. D&D encourages a variety of playstyles, with different emphases on player agency, DM empowerment, railroading, DM ex machina, and even the topic we are discussing. The fact that my opinion of the issue is different that yours doesn't mean that either of our opinions is invalid.

I wouldn't throw an unavoidable and unbeatable encounter at my players any more than I would fiat, "rocks fall, everybody dies". If it had been their own stubbornness (charging a heavily defended enemy stronghold) it would have been one thing. However, for obvious reasons, this encounter was effectively unavoidable, so it would have been unfair IMO to throw a guaranteed TPK at them.

Note that you are mistaken about this being an encounter to advance the plot. It simply was a natural consequence of prior actions in the campaign. I kept it beatable, but heavily slanted against the characters because that made the most sense, while maintaining fairness. The fact that they were there to steal rather than kill was also because it made the most sense. The lich had no reason to want the characters dead, he just didn't trust it in their care. They simply thought it was an evil artifact, so there was a risk they might look for a way to destroy it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*