D&D 5E save or boring

evilbob

Adventurer
The thread title is a little dramatic, but now that 5.0 is a little older and campaigns are a little more along, how are people feeling about spells that are not save-or-die, but rather save-or-can't-do-anything? (Mid-campaign spells, typically.) I find they tend to create two weird situations that turn gameplay a bit "meh" for us:

First, if the party casts a save-or-win spell (we have a bard with hypnotic pattern, for example - and now polymorph), it means that this character either single-handedly destroys the encounter... or, they wasted a turn. Thanks to how human beings work (perception bias and whatnot), even a 50/50 split on this means the player tends to believe they waste turns far more often than they save the day... which means they think combat is boring and they aren't good at it. Or, they trivialize the encounter, which is fine - but also a bit anticlimactic, especially when it's some sort of boss. Or you run into the even worse situation, where suddenly all bosses are curiously immune to charm or whatever... Thus negating this character's One Big Thing. It's a tricky line to walk, in my opinion.

Or, you have the opposite, where the monsters cast on the players - which in my opinion is the worst of all. This means the player has to save, or skip one or more turns - which is awful. It's helpless + frustrating + disengaging all in one. I've never seen a phone get pulled out faster, and when the phones come out, that player is going to take a long time and a lot of effort on my part to come back. On the other hand, pretty much all monster attacks can be categorized as a) does damage to one or more PCs, b) incapacitates a PC in some manner. And when I'm running a game, just throwing around damage every turn gets to be a chore - not to mention how slow it can get when you have lots of baddies. It also tends to encourage simplistic thinking - "ok, who do I hit this round" - as opposed to interesting play - "I drop the chandelier on his head to capture him!" - because every round is just a series of numbers until the battle is over.

Part of this is definitely due to our playstyle, as we tend to have fewer battles against bigger foes (especially since our particular party can do things like kill a CR 13 purple worm in one round at level 9 - it was their 4th encounter of the day). We just don't have time to play out more than ~4 or 5 battles in one session, and most of them aren't big combat players (it's just not their favorite), so combat is fewer and further between - which means One Big Thing spells have a MUCH bigger impact, and players losing a turn is a larger percentage of all combat rounds being done that night.

I've tried upping the number of bad guys so One Big Thing spells don't do as much, but then if the One Big Thing spell doesn't hit - oh boy. They are screwed. Plus, it just takes forever to run so many monsters. Ultimately, what ends up happening is that we just run even fewer encounters... but that just makes both problems bigger.

Anyway, just wondering how others have navigated these spells and whether or not they have been as much of an issue.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Seems like you have an opportunity - instead of ignoring a "timed-out" character, imperil them. When framing the next person's turn illustrate why the timed-out character must be protected or saved.

Use the circumstances to increase the danger of the moment and ask what the others are going to do about it. Even the player who is timed-out should feel the tension of imminent peril.

That isn't boring.
 


In my game we run into this from time to time.

Our warlock has fireball (and he only casts 5th level spells) so when a hoard of orcs, or hobgoblins show up, I have to guess "Is this the encounter that wont happen?" because some times he casts it and other times he doesn't.... at 9th level he cast it at a group of 'demonic ragers' and I had him roll damage, I figured that if I took 1/4 damage (half from save half from restence) they would each have 1-2hp left...so I just delcaired them all dead and moved on... it was a great victory for the PCs...

However the Bard that cast Tasha's laughing spell at the dragon, and again at the high priest of demons, and at the kobold alchmest, and at the head of the thieves guild, and on the salamander, and on the were wolf... all successfully either ending the encounter, or at least darn near close... only seems to remember when the Lord of Illuison and Enchantment (also known as the faceless mage) made his save, when the hydra made the save, and when the vampire's shadow double was immune to it... he and the other players often tell me how 'useless' that spell fells...
 

Seems like you have an opportunity - instead of ignoring a "timed-out" character, imperil them. When framing the next person's turn illustrate why the timed-out character must be protected or saved.

Use the circumstances to increase the danger of the moment and ask what the others are going to do about it. Even the player who is timed-out should feel the tension of imminent peril.
Well, except that the endangered player has no agency. And 99% of the time, "do more damage" is still the correct response to that question. The best way to save the character is to kill the baddies as quickly as possible - which was also the goal at the beginning. Either that, or you try to have the enemy coup-de-grace the timed-out-character, in which case it really was a save-or-die, and then everyone feels bad. Still, I think your advice is good, and maybe there's a way to turn those situations into more dramatic ones.

Do you know what you call a person who succeeds 1/3 of the time? A hall of fame baseball player.
Well, yeah. I get that. But people don't. (Also, banning phones would not work; these are adults and I'm not going to tell them what they can or can't do.)

What you identify has always been an issue- both the "save or nothing" mechanic has always been an issue.
...
And no one has ever enjoy having their favorite character, Nunly the Half-Wit, knocked out of combat, and been forced to sit around and read old copies of Dragon Magazine while everyone else was off saving the Kingdom.
Oh I know! But 5.0 has fixed so many other things, I wondered if others were having the same old trouble with this. And frankly, just because it's always been a problem doesn't mean we should put up with it any more. Try going back and playing Final Fantasy 1, and how much grinding you have to do just to get past like, the second town. Games don't do that any more because it's not fun. So why would we continue to have Nunly sit on the sidelines when this is decades later and we should have figured out how to do it better by now?

However the Bard that cast Tasha's laughing spell at the dragon, and again at the high priest of demons, and at the kobold alchmest, and at the head of the thieves guild, and on the salamander, and on the were wolf... all successfully either ending the encounter, or at least darn near close... only seems to remember when the Lord of Illuison and Enchantment (also known as the faceless mage) made his save, when the hydra made the save, and when the vampire's shadow double was immune to it... he and the other players often tell me how 'useless' that spell fells...
Yuuuuup. Can't tell you how many times the bard has destroyed an encounter single-handedly... and still feels like their character isn't good in combat. I've even talked to the player about it, but it's hard to overcome that bias.
 

Agency is a weird idea. It's one of those things where we all know it's "good" but then become afraid of.

"Linear dungeons rob players of agency!"

"Save or time out eliminates players' agency!"

Etc.

But you know, Agency ISNT the ability to do anything you want at any time. It seems like it is, but that's misunderstood.

Agency is the players' ability to remove the power of randomness and chaos by making decisions. To do that, Randomness and Chaos have to have some effect.

In a sense, one can deprive players of agency by never confronting them with adversity or meaningful decision points between competing priorities.

As a DM, one of my duties is to identify the players' goals, and then place obstacles between them and their goals. I design problems, but I leave solutions to them. Now, you may anticipate a number of solutions, but you leave them to the players to work out. That's their agency.

Confronting them, challenging them, even locking them out for a turn, doesn't deprive them of any agency. It simply asks them to decide between competing priorities. When you say "deal more damage is always the answer" it's because you've failed to highlight the meaning and consequences behind those choices. "Yes, you can do more damage, but if nobody protects Bob, he's going to die." And then, if they still opt for more damage, you kill Bob. NOT killing him would rob their decision of its impact & consequences.

These dilemmas have to be meaningful & these consequences have to be real. It doesn't always have to be life and death (but this is a combat discussion, so...) - but it does have to have a serious trade off. If you do X, you cannot do Y. Or if you do A, B will also happen.

Anyway, don't be afraid of using a time-out. Just frickin' USE it. To maximum impact. Likewise don't limit options or impose obstacles out of fear of impinging on agency (because that isn't what agency means).
 

IMG when one player does something that just destroys an encounter its high fives around the table and its noted in the adventure log they keep that Bob the Bard ruled mightily that day. As for spells that take a player out vie hold person, etc they have already moved from a certain number of rounds to saving each round I believe so its not like they are always out for more than a round as it is. I don't have a problem at all with that and would not be happy if they took those kinds of spells out of the game. But I'm an older guy who never minded tons of brutal save or die and similar stuff from early D&D.

And players who immediately check out of the game when their turn passes and pull out the phone instead of staying engaged with how the rest of the players are doing so they are ready to go when the effect ends are usually a problem that just gets worse IME. Instead of planning their next turn as it goes around the table they do something else only to need to look up a spell when its their turn and suddenly the game grinds to a halt while they try to get back up to speed on stuff they were ignoring. I know it seems like everyone is ADHD these days but sometimes I want to pull my hair out.
 


And players who immediately check out of the game when their turn passes and pull out the phone instead of staying engaged with how the rest of the players are doing so they are ready to go when the effect ends are usually a problem that just gets worse IME. Instead of planning their next turn as it goes around the table they do something else only to need to look up a spell when its their turn and suddenly the game grinds to a halt while they try to get back up to speed on stuff they were ignoring. I know it seems like everyone is ADHD these days but sometimes I want to pull my hair out.
Oh I know. Totally hear you. No idea how to change this. I just try to keep things as interesting as possible and highlight everyone at some point, but billions of dollars didn't get spent to create devices and software that could be put down easily.
 

Remove ads

Top