D&D 5E Removing save-each-turn mechanic

[Skyscraper]

One question I want feedback on is : "in particular, do you find that those spells would be relatively balanced compared to other spells of their new level?" Namely, spells that are one level higher but become single save spells.

People seem incredulous at the mere fact that I'm contemplating this houserule. Hehe As I mentioned above, there are ways to remove paralysis. It requires the proper counterspell. And, you can target spellcasters, if the spell requires concentration. Then, like I mentioned, most foes won't have access to paralysing powers. So what are the real odds of a PC ending up paralysed for a whole battle? Quite low, in fact.

So why do I want it? For the fear effect. I'll even add that in my games, there is no magic that brings the dead back to life. No raise dead or ressurrection. (There might be dark rituals, but you don't want to mess with those. Or do you?) I want the players - not the PCs, the players - to be nervous in some gameplay circumstances. Players become nervous when their PC is threatened in certain ways. When you meet a bunch of ghouls... Will you really attack, knowing that your whole party can simply die to such enemies? Old school did have more of this. Sure, it was more arbitrary etc.. etc.. Like I said, some people dislike this, and I respect that.

My intent is not to convince anyone about whether it's more fun to play single-save or save-each-round. I'm fine with most people preferring the latter, and me, the former. Or rather, it's not that I prefer one over the other. It's more that, after having played with the latter for a while, I want to play with the former right now.

I'm more looking at the mechanics, and less at why people prefer save-each-round. But I don't want to restrict the topic necessarily, because in my recent threads I found that some people sharing their dislike of a rule, supported their arguments with actual constructive stuff on why they dislike it. I can thereafter disregard the opinion that I respect but do not find useful, and pick up the mechanical challenges to see how - or if - I want to deal with them.

So, back to the mechanics. I think the challenge generally more lies in the gameplay balance. If there are foes at every corner that know Hold Person or Flesh to Stone, you're stuck in a difficult situation. This won't be the situation in my games. NPC casters and paralysing monsters are rare. As for players having access to single-save spells, I can deal with that pretty easily with story-based stuff. I like that some monsters will be easy to defeat because the right spell worked at the right time.

Yet, the save-each-round transformed into single-save spells and powers will exist and I don't want them to be auto-win buttons necessarily. So does my proposed modification make sense to balance things, namely to increase the spell level by 1 for those spells?

 

[dmnqwk]

I don't think changing the spell levels to make the spells easier to use is a good idea, you'd be better to do the following instead:

1) When they make a saving throw, they suffer the effects for 1 round for each point below the DC they rolled - if they fail it more than 5 they suffer the effects for the full duration (which would be 10 rounds usually)
2) If you don't bother with concentration damage checks, allow a player a new saving throw immediately upon the caster taking damage (to simulate he is distracted).

I think with those 2 rolls in place you can simplify things quite nicely. Also feel free not to tell players by how much they failed (though they might try to work it out if a 14 passed but a 13 fails!)

 

[steeldragons]

Personally, I don't think you have to change their spell level, even. The thing with save-by-round spells is...they suck for the levels they already are, because chances are, your spell is only going to last a single round.

If you want to change the spell levels of all of these spells, that's fine/your choice...and for all other damage-causing spells that allow a single save, it would make sense/be "balanced" in my mind that the save-by-round spells should be the same. One save. You're stuck until duration (aren't most of these concentration effects anyway?) ends.

My personal, initial, thought on this proposal would be..in the interest of "more powerful spellcasters being more dangerous/difficult to overcome their magic"...Leave the spells the levels they are but after the initial save (which they all have), you don't get a chance to save again until "caster's proficiency bonus rounds" later. So, the higher level the caster, the more "stable" or "difficult to overcome" the spell effect is.

I just might be interested in houseruling this, myself, as I despise the save-by-round mechanic. Makes perfectly good (and for most earlier editions "very good"!) spells next to useless.

LIMITING, extending versus eliminating, the opportunities to repeat the save make the spells all more useful (even at lower levels) without requiring the adjustment of their spell level.

 

[Skyscraper]

To clarify something, since I have another thread running on my musings on concentration house rules, I doubt that I would change concentration rules if I removed the save-each-round mechanic. Of course, casters would become targets. But, you know.. that's kind of the tradeoff here

I note the two suggestions above, about one save after (prof bonus) rounds; and about the duration = 1 round per DC failure point. Interesting suggestions, but I don't know if I'd want to do this, it seems like the stuff I'd forget about (re: save after 3 rounds) or the kind of tracking I would not want to add (this guy is paralysed for 2 rounds, and this guy for 3).

 

[Mouseferatu]

Speaking as a player, going into combat against spells or powers of this sort wouldn't make me nervous at all. It'd just make me annoyed.

I don't know what the solution is, frankly. (And it is something I've thought about, as a DM. I'd like for such effects to be more scary, too.) But there's a decent chance I'd just decide not to play in a game with such house rules.

(Sitting out multiple rounds of combat, or making a player do so, has bothered me since pre-1E.)

 

[Fimbria]

Not necessarily. There are a lot of people who still enjoy TSR era D&D, and prefer the higher lethality of those types of systems, and the extra planning you would need to do, rather than just zerg into combat expecting all battles to be winnable without bothering to do any risk assessments.

For example, in these types of spells, you would need to prepare yourself with dispel magic spells or reversal scrolls. In 5e, there really isn't a bother for those since you keep getting chance after chance to break out of it yourself

Then it sounds like you have two good answers to my question. First, your battles are short enough that nobody would mind sitting out of one. Second, during major battles you have a way to use the scroll mechanics such that players generally rejoin the game within a round or two.

Both of those are excellent answers. The scrolls mechanic seems like an interesting way to add both gameplay options and narrative potential.

I was also interested in how Skyscraper would answer the question, since he will need to address it during the game.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

My suggestion: All spells have a "mandetory" duration before you can start rolling to save again, equal to the level of the spell. So a 2nd level spell, will last at least the round in which the victim failed his save, plus two more rounds; after that, up to the duration, he can roll as per the rules. This gives higher level spells a bit more "oomph", while making the lower level ones at least somewhat useful for more than a single round or two when at mid to high levels.

As for the "what does a player do when he/she is 'out' of the combat for 6 rounds?". Uhmmm... sit there like an adult and enjoy the fact that everyone else is having fun trying to save your characters sorry @$$? Or, I suppose, act like a spoiled child, whine, bitch and moan about 'not getting to do anything' for a whole five to ten minutes, with the added bonus of greatly annoying and reducing the fun of everyone else at the table because now they feel guilty/bad for making their save. Personally, I game with the former type of player...the later type get the "Don't call me, I'll call you" line as they are walking out the door.

As an aside, what I also allow my players to do if their characters are "out of it" for a bit, is to freely offer suggestions to everyone else at the table. These players can look up rules, spells, abilities, etc for everyone and offer suggestions to them. I see them as a sort of "panicking consciousness" of the other PC's. Desperation breeds innovation and all that.

DM: Thalgaar falls under the spell and stops moving! Looks like you, Yanvah, are the only one left standing!
Player 1: Oh crap! Uh, um...what do I do?!?! Uhmmm....
Players 2 - 4: Hey, why don't you [insert several ideas]...maybe that will work.
Player 1: Ok, I'll [insert best idea].
DM: With the smell of burnt flesh, some of which is your own, you find yourself standing. Barely. All the buggaboos lay dead around you, crisp and smoking from your fantastic maneuver. A few seconds later, Thalgaar, a bit singed around the edges, slowly sits up...
Player 2: What happened...uggghhh....
Player 1: I'm not sure, it's all a blur. I saw you go down, and panicked. A million things raced through my head, I though for sure we were all going to die and get eaten! Then, suddenly, I got an idea...

That's how it is in my D&D games. Players are always "playing", even if they don't have an actual horse in the race, so to speak. A lot of the time's the player(s) quite happy to just sit there and see what happens next. That's one of the cool things about RPG's...seeing what happens next, of not knowing the outcome, and of knowing that at any time things can go horrible, horribly wrong.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[mellored]

One question I want feedback on is : "in particular, do you find that those spells would be relatively balanced compared to other spells of their new level?" Namely, spells that are one level higher but become single save spells.

2 or even 3 levels higher would probably be more appropriate IMO. Since hold person is now better then banishment. It can be really nasty with sorcerer's heightened.

Maybe 1 level higher for spells that have other way's to break them, like hypnotic pattern, where you can shake people awake. Or if you add more spell break features, like wands of counter spell and dispel, or concentration simply breaks if you take damage.


Also, hex doesn't have a save.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I'm still toying with spellcasting houserules - per a few other threads I posted here, the feedback of which having been, honestly, quite simply great.

As part of a few houserules that I'm considering (you can see my variant spellcasting thread if you want details), I was initially thinking about increasing the spellpower of spells that allow a save when the spell is cast plus a save at the end of each turn, to instead allow only a save when the spell is cast plus a single save at the end of the target's first turn (item #6 in that other thread).

I'm now considering another alternate rule instead: to allow a single save when the spell is cast, period, in the old-school style. But to bump up all those spells of one level. So Hold Person would become a third level spell.

I'm continuing to think about the the save-each-round mechanic and wish to engage this community in this thought process, for those that wish to discuss this.

The save-each-round rule of course makes plenty of sense and I won't argue that a player might find a battle boring if his PC is paralysed for the entirey battle. I played a lot of AD&D, 3.5 D&D, 4E D&D, a bit of 5E, and a lot of DDM (D&D miniatures tabletop strategy that uses the save-each-round mechanic) - plus other systems including retroclones and the like. So I'm familiar with both styles of play, i.e. save-each-round and save-or-suck.

What I like about save-or-suck, is that spellcasting really matters. I understand that this can be seen as relatively downgrading non-caster PCs, but I don't see it that way at all - I like the challenge . I understand that many players don't like that playstyle, and I respect that. Like, totally.

Concerning the of course valid point of players finding it boring to stand around while their PC is paralysed, I'll mention that (1) NPC casters and monsters that can paralyse are not necessarily frequent in my low-ish magic homebrew setting; and (2) players should consider having Lesser Restauration, Dispel Magic or the like prepared to counter this eventuality. It's likely that most PCs will not remain paralysed if players indeed opt to have counterspells prepared (in the large sense of "counterspell").

What are the thoughts of this community about the rule of allowing a single save when the spell is cast, old-school style; and to bump up all those spells of one level? In particular, do you find that those spells would be relatively balanced compared to other spells of their new level?

For reference, @Wolf118 digged up a non-exhaustive, but useful, list of spells that use the save-each-round mechanic, in this post in another thread I started on a similar topic. Here is the list he came up with, with level indicated and with the "c" meaning that concentration is also required. Thanks again wolf118!

Saving throw at the end of each turn
Blinding Smite – 3c
Blindness/Deafness – 3
Compulsion – 4c
Confusion – 4c
Crown of Madness – 2c
Ensnaring Strike – 1c
Entangle – 1c
Evard’s Black Tentacles – 4c
Eyebite – 6c
Hold Monster – 5c
Hold Person – 2c
Power Word Stun – 8
Ray of Enfeeblement – 2c
Searing Smite – 1c
Slow – 3c
Sunburst – 8
Tasha’s Hideous Laughter – 1c
Wrathful Smite – 1c

One Saving Throw for duration
Banishing Smite – 5c
Banishment – 4c
Branding Smite – 2c
Charm Person – 1
Color Spray – 1
Enlarge/Reduce – 2c
Enthrall – 2
Hex – 1c
Holy Aura – 8c
Imprisonment – 9
Planar Binding – 5
Ray of Sickness – 1

Edited to bold the question I most want answered

I would suggest making those spells concentration based then, to allow the spell to be broken by allies..?

I suspect the kind of spell power you are looking for is more in the OSR or 2e vein. Incidentally OSR has become my favored system of late. Magic is more powerful but the casters have no cantrips (both of which, as it turns out, are desirable in my view, having played 5e for quite a while now).

 

[MoutonRustique]

It's a significant change in "inter-class-balance" - those w/o options to remove these effects become dependent upon those that can. This may be what you're looking for.

It can have several effects on player behavior :
- a return to "we need x-class" type behavior
- a feeling of weakening the martial classes (many people root for this)
- a feeling of "pressure" upon character creation choices
- a much more "coin toss" resolution to combats
- an increase in the value of initiative
- a lessened feeling of control of players on their characters
- a increased expectancy of character death
- an increase in the 5MWD
- other things but my list is long enough already

All of this is table dependent. As for the "Is this idea balanced" question : no it is not if you consider the base game as balanced - not allowing further saves is an increase in power that is not comparable to a single level increase for some of these spells.