Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 9678502" data-attributes="member: 6796468">Eh... As a designer, I'm of two minds about it.1) Save or Suck spells have to exist in order to fulfill the mandates of the fantasy that inspires D&amp;D and other TTRPGs.Whether it's charming, domination, paralysis, dancing, or whatever else, there's just tons of precedent for stuff that takes hold and you're unable to do anything else once it has. It's just part of genre fiction in general. Whether that's a vampire holding you in it's gaze from various movies and stories, the pied piper playing his flute to steal your kids, or some kind of powerful magic that stops you in your tracks and renders you insensate, or a newt.... I got better!You just cannot get rid of binaristic spellcasting effects while staying true to what came before.2) They really suck and need some limits in their use structures.Famously, practically any &quot;Save or Suck&quot; effect of an NPC in D&amp;D is &quot;if you succeed you become immune for 24 hours&quot;. I think that was a great improvement over things, myself. Tack on saves at the end of your turn to break free, and you've got a pretty solid structure. But I would put a couple other limits on them, myself.Firstly, they're not combat magic for the most part. Charm Person, for example, gives your target advantage on the saving throw if they're in combat with you at the time. Throw that onto spells like Suggestion or Command, too.Secondly, expand resistance. If you save against Suggestion you are immune to the spell for 24 hours, and gain advantage against other Enchantments during the same time.Because as we saw in the OP's example, the issue wasn't just &quot;Save or Suck&quot;. It was REPEATED save or suck applied to the enemy over and over and over again.It was like the IRA once said to Margaret Thatcher. &quot;We only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky every time.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Steampunkette, post: 9678502, member: 6796468"] Eh... As a designer, I'm of two minds about it. [B]1) Save or Suck spells have to exist in order to fulfill the mandates of the fantasy that inspires D&D and other TTRPGs.[/B] Whether it's charming, domination, paralysis, dancing, or whatever else, there's just tons of precedent for stuff that takes hold and you're unable to do anything else once it has. It's just part of genre fiction in general. Whether that's a vampire holding you in it's gaze from various movies and stories, the pied piper playing his flute to steal your kids, or some kind of powerful magic that stops you in your tracks and renders you insensate, or a newt. ... I got better! You just cannot get rid of binaristic spellcasting effects while staying true to what came before. [B]2) They really suck and need some limits in their use structures.[/B] Famously, practically any "Save or Suck" effect of an NPC in D&D is "if you succeed you become immune for 24 hours". I think that was a great improvement over things, myself. Tack on saves at the end of your turn to break free, and you've got a pretty solid structure. But I would put a couple other limits on them, myself. Firstly, they're not combat magic for the most part. [I]Charm Person[/I], for example, gives your target advantage on the saving throw if they're in combat with you at the time. Throw that onto spells like [I]Suggestion[/I] or [I]Command[/I], too. Secondly, expand resistance. If you save against [I]Suggestion[/I] you are immune to the spell for 24 hours, and gain advantage against other Enchantments during the same time. Because as we saw in the OP's example, the issue wasn't just "Save or Suck". It was REPEATED save or suck applied to the enemy over and over and over again. It was like the IRA once said to Margaret Thatcher. "We only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky every time." [/QUOTE]

Verification