Or even a better-than-average roll and a bad guy hopped up on (mental) steroids. I still remember playing in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil; our party was about 11th-12th level and we were running into clerics throwing save-or-dies with DCs in the mid 20s. Even our fighter only had about a 50-50 chance of making that Fort save. Ridiculous, IMO.WyzardWhately said:
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Poll: Do you want Save-Or-Die in 4th Edition
- Thread starter Scholar & Brutalman
- Start date
FireLance
Legend
In my view, the problem of save-or-die gets mixed up with a whole host of other issues, such as: How often should the PCs die? How easy should it be for the PCs to recover from death? Should encountering a save-or-die challenge always be a conscious choice on the part of the players?
In a way, I think I would mind both save-or-die challenges and raise dead/resurrection less if raise dead and related spells only work on creatures that have died from [Death] effects, thus providing an easy way of undoing the downside of save-or-die, while preventing the use of raise dead on creatures that have died from wounds, disease, poison, etc.
In a way, I think I would mind both save-or-die challenges and raise dead/resurrection less if raise dead and related spells only work on creatures that have died from [Death] effects, thus providing an easy way of undoing the downside of save-or-die, while preventing the use of raise dead on creatures that have died from wounds, disease, poison, etc.
gothmaugCC
First Post
Yes, casue as a GM i use it judiciously.
Yes, because my players don't abuse it, for they know that if they began to abuse it, so would I, and thats a lose-lose scenario.
Prsonally I'd like the option. Looks like I'll be creating a house rule version for disintergrate in the new edition. DnD just wouldn't feel right without a spell that makes your comrade/enemy go "poof".
Yes, because my players don't abuse it, for they know that if they began to abuse it, so would I, and thats a lose-lose scenario.
Prsonally I'd like the option. Looks like I'll be creating a house rule version for disintergrate in the new edition. DnD just wouldn't feel right without a spell that makes your comrade/enemy go "poof".
Li Shenron
Legend
I'd certainly like a couple of scary save-or-die spells at high level.
Maybe with multiple saving throws, to lower the odds, or even better if they could come up with some ideas that would allow a player to lower those odds by doing something clever.
Maybe with multiple saving throws, to lower the odds, or even better if they could come up with some ideas that would allow a player to lower those odds by doing something clever.
A'koss said:
Yep, I hate save or die and resurrection – have never wanted to resurrect a character, somehow I feel like…I'm cheating.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I agree, the enemy/comrade going "poof" is fine with me - but I don't see it a neccessity that this happens only based on a save. I think 3.5 desintegrate is a fine solution - if deals massive amount of damage, and if that happens to bring you down to negaitve hp (-1 or -10?), then you go "poof". I like that. If I ever had to implement D20 rules for phasers set to disintegrate, that's a solution I'd use.gothmaugCC said:
Why? I mean, why is a tough body not helpful for avoiding death? I am okay if it doesn't help you from being frightened or failling prey to an illusion.
Though it's not like the current save or die effects work that way. Many of them target your fortitude save, and again, the frail wizard is at a great disadvantage.
Because some death spell use illusion or terror... Or just because magic is not about physical damage. It's about damage.Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Yup. So, when the spell effect is based upon fort save and HP damage, the barbarian is advantaged twice. First because he has a better save, and then because he has more hit-points. This is not fun nor fair, IMHO.
As far as I know, when you are targeted by dominate spells, you have only one one will save : you don't have a buffer "will point" to protect you if you fail.
We can agree that being great and strong means that you can support more physical punishment. It does not make you better at avoiding heart attack or resisting disease, however. This is why small women live longer than big men.
