save or die 3.5

[Shard O'Glase]

Thanks to roytheodd it seems as if the save or die spells have gotton spotty revisions. Disinigrate gets the save or massive damage method, and finger of death is still save or die.

Wierd to me, I can't see the logic for this. If disinigrate was so bad assed it needed a change, well then so did finger of death.

Who knows maybe the disinigrate change isn't a change for the spell but just the mosnters special ability of the same name.

 

[A'koss]

Grrr...

Originally posted by Shard O'Glase:

Wierd to me, I can't see the logic for this. If disinigrate was so bad assed it needed a change, well then so did finger of death.

I agree, and this really irks me too. At high and epic levels it's still going to be spell focus -> stat buff -> Save or Die spell fests... [sigh]

And btw, the change to disintegrate has been confirmed by Andy Collins so it's not just a "monster change".


Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[jodyjohnson]

So far

General 3.0 Save or die spells or at least save or something really bad happens...

Hold Person/Monster: new save each round

Polymorph Other (Baneful Polymorph): transformation to a non-viable form grants +4 to the save.

Finger of Death: remains save or die (still plenty of creatures immune to [Death] effects plus Death Ward)
Lump the rest of the [Death] effects here.

Disintegrate: 20d6+1d6/level. (or 2d6/level) Capped at 40d6.
- Possibly due to the effects this has on non-living matter. "It's a locked adamantine door? OK disintegrate. It's gone." Also the only protection spell was very high level and non-core. Hit point damage would also determine how much inanimate material could be destroyed.

Phantasmal Killer: ??? (Mind effecting)
Weird: ??? ( Mind effecting)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Disintegrate ignores death ward and can kill constructs, undead and objects. It was blatantly better than death ward.

There were two fixes available:

1) Change it's level.
2) Change it's effects.

WotC doesn't want to change spell levels, so they went with option 2.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Andy Collins
Checkin' my e-mail
(6/10/03 9:03 am)
Reply Re: Save or Die spells survive in 3.5e?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it's a gradual change.

Eliminating all save or die spells would have been a bigger system shift. Think of disintegrate as an experiment in a new way of thinking about mega-powerful spells.
Andy Collins
Senior Designer
Wizards of the Coast Roleplaying R&D

http://pub36.ezboard.com/fgameschat19968frm10.showMessage?topicID=358.topic

As an experiment seems like ignoring the change to Disintegrate would be a valid HR for those opposed or changing all the save or dies to the Disintegrate mechanic for those in favor.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I don't like the reasoning. If save or dies are worth changing and I think they are change them. Disinigrate may be the better spell since it effects a wider range of things and death ward doesn't stop it.(though death ward is broader now so who knows) But then bump it up a level or two, an experiment on how save or dies should be is just lame.

Also personally I thought disinigrate was good but not better because that freakin ranged touch attack with my crap bab made me miss enough that's its power was dramatically reduced. In fact I'd say I missed way more often than I bumped into death ward.

 

[Grog]

The worst part is, Disintegrate is still going to be save or die for many PC classes.

Say a 12th level wizard casts Disintegrate on another 12th level wizard. Say the target has a 20 Con (14 starting, +2 toad, +4 item). That means he'll have about 90 hit points, assuming close to average HP rolls.

He fails the Fort save and takes 32d6 damage. That's 112 damage on average (and rolling that many dice, you're going to get somewhere very close to the average every time). Even if the wizard is at full HP, he's reduced below -10 and killed.

So, for all intents and purposes, Disintegrate is still a save or die spell for that wizard. Same situation for a rogue with 18 Con. Sure, a fighter or cleric might be able to survive the damage... But a fighter or cleric has a good chance to make the Fort save anyway, so the enemy probably won't cast the spell on them.

But against monsters, if the monster has more than 115 HP or so (as most 3.5 monsters CR 12 and up probably will), he can survive the Disintegrate even if he fails his save.

So, Disintegrate is every bit as deadly as it used to be when used against players, but is substantially weaker when used against monsters.

Pure player nerf.

 

[jasamcarl]

The worst part is, Disintegrate is still going to be save or die for many PC classes.

Say a 12th level wizard casts Disintegrate on another 12th level wizard. Say the target has a 20 Con (14 starting, +2 toad, +4 item). That means he'll have about 90 hit points, assuming close to average HP rolls.

He fails the Fort save and takes 32d6 damage. That's 112 damage on average (and rolling that many dice, you're going to get somewhere very close to the average every time). Even if the wizard is at full HP, he's reduced below -10 and killed.

So, for all intents and purposes, Disintegrate is still a save or die spell for that wizard. Same situation for a rogue with 18 Con. Sure, a fighter or cleric might be able to survive the damage... But a fighter or cleric has a good chance to make the Fort save anyway, so the enemy probably won't cast the spell on them.

But against monsters, if the monster has more than 115 HP or so (as most 3.5 monsters CR 12 and up probably will), he can survive the Disintegrate even if he fails his save.

So, Disintegrate is every bit as deadly as it used to be when used against players, but is substantially weaker when used against monsters.

Pure player nerf.

You are forgetting about NPCs.

 

[Grog]

You are forgetting about NPCs.

True, PCs can still kill NPCs with the spell... But PCs are usually fighting monsters, not NPCs.

 

[Henry]

There is another reason for the change - Epic-level play.

One of the things Ed Stark said in his Mortality interview was that spells are taking Epic-level play into account. What this means is to put caps on spells so that they are not better than the Epic-level spells that are meant to replace them. A Save or disintegrate spell is technically better than a spell which does a "lotta damage"; therefore, there is some logic in toning down spells that do not have an available counter to an effect that oes have a counter. It's why he also said that the 6th level Heal Spell has a cap of 150 points of healing, why the "save or die" spells are becoming "save or lotta damage" spells, etc.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can understand the logic behind it.