save or die 3.5

[Qvintus]

Any one knows if they also are going to do something about Phantasmal Killer. I know it's a two save spell but even a Cleric hardly have a chance to save vs a focused illusionist

 

[Tom Cashel]

Don't play a lot of HL games do you Tom?

I do indeed. Well, mid-level right now, but believe me: we have our share of PC deaths.

I think the argument against save or die spells is the same argument as the one against sunder, and the one against imposing the armor-donning rules, and the one against level drain, and permanent ability loss, etc. etc. etc.

Of course players don't want bad things to happen to their characters, but without great risk...what's the point? That's my opinion.

Hey, (Psi)--sorry for getting snotty with you. I was utterly drunk on martinis last night. Thanks for changing the sig, tho...it lends greater creedence to your Harm theorem.

 

[Fenes 2]

Well, the way I see it, the point of the game is to have fun. I don't have fun if I have to fear that certain bad things (Mainly death - capture, slavery etc, is not a problem) could happen to my PC, so I won't play in a campaign I have no fun in.

As an aside, I don't have fun DMing paranoid players, so I tell them clearly I won't kill off PCs without warning, and not for staying in character. In exchange I expect a more, say, cinematic game, where the most fun/stylish solution/gear/plan is chosen, not the most effective or safest.

Works well, very well in fact for me, but it is not for everyone.

 

[Ashe]

But that is just part of the HP logic of D&D.

A high level barbarian can survive enough axe chops to fell a 12 foot diameter tree.

So why can't he also survive a spell that would disintegrate a section of the tree?

I see your point, but this could start a totally off topic discussion on what hitpoints actually represent. My statement is coming from the POV that as you progress in levels you aren't actually able to take more damage. You are just more adept and getting out of the way and lessening the affect of weapons. I really like the Star Wars method of dealing with hit points.

 

[A'koss]

Orignally posted by Tom Cashel:

I think the argument against save or die spells is the same argument as the one against sunder, and the one against imposing the armor-donning rules, and the one against level drain, and permanent ability loss, etc. etc. etc.

Of course players don't want bad things to happen to their characters, but without great risk...what's the point? That's my opinion.

If you think that suddenly adventures become cakewalks without SoD spells, I think it's fair to say you haven't played enough HL games.

The point of the game is also to have fun, and with lives of characters (on both sides of the screen) constantly in the hands of these "one roll deciders"... well, for some of us - that ain't fun. Risk is an important element in the game, don't get me wrong, but you have think of the viability of the long-term campaign as well. It's actually more dangerous to be a HL character than a mid level one right now.



Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[WizarDru]

I do indeed. Well, mid-level right now, but believe me: we have our share of PC deaths.

I think the argument against save or die spells is the same argument as the one against sunder, and the one against imposing the armor-donning rules, and the one against level drain, and permanent ability loss, etc. etc. etc.

Of course players don't want bad things to happen to their characters, but without great risk...what's the point? That's my opinion.

At nigh-epic levels, some spells just become game-deflaters, if used with any frequency. Characters want to know that their death was due to a miscalculation, or a bad tactical choice, or a failure of teamwork. Dying due to a single roll of the d20 is far from fun. You don't have to go to high-level to encounter that, but it's much more prevalent, there. I have no problem with save-or-die spells, in the right context. A party that goes against a bodak without protection, knowing that the possiblity exists that they'll be facing one deserves what it gets. But a party that's just wandering around the town graveyard and is ambushed by one isn't going to be basking in the thrill of the moment, necessarily. The survivors (if there are any) will have a great tale, sure...but what about the folks who didn't have a choice in the matter?

At the post-15th level phase, most serious threats to PCs come from either Massive Damage or Save-or-Die effects. Either a Paragon Girallon rips a PC apart almost instantly, or a lich casts disintegrate and the PC rolls a '1'. At high-levels, many effects hit the 5% factor, spells start lumping towards the natural 1 to succeed or Natural 20 to fail categories. To me, that just isn't that fun. YMMV.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Hey, (Psi)--sorry for getting snotty with you. I was utterly drunk on martinis last night. Thanks for changing the sig, tho...it lends greater creedence to your Harm theorem.

No prob.

 

[Larry Fitz]

How many rolls would it take to be fun? One roll isn't fun, is three? Five? How many? What makes the game fun is risk, knowing that there are dire consequences for your character depending on how they handle situations. Without risk, where's the fun? For my money the higher risk, the more fun. Save or die makes the game better, save or massive damage .... bleh.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

For me the game deflation is not on the I might die side its on the oh yipee I just ended the final ancounter with one spell. That removes all the fun when I cast one spell and bang the fights over, especially when this fight was supposed to be dramatic. If this happened once or twic ein the campaign no big deal and kind of funny, but when it happens in 50% of the encoutners from level 12 on no one is having fun.

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by Larry Fitz:

How many rolls would it take to be fun? One roll isn't fun, is three? Five? How many? What makes the game fun is risk, knowing that there are dire consequences for your character depending on how they handle situations. Without risk, where's the fun? For my money the higher risk, the more fun. Save or die makes the game better, save or massive damage .... bleh.

Weird, I just can't see where you guys are coming from. The game is plenty deadly enough without SoD. You and Tom make it sound like characters would have boring "gimme" encounters if it was taken out. That 180 degrees away from my experience.

Originally posted by Shard O'Glase:

For me the game deflation is not on the I might die side its on the oh yipee I just ended the final ancounter with one spell. That removes all the fun when I cast one spell and bang the fights over, especially when this fight was supposed to be dramatic.

This is part of what I was trying to touch upon earlier with these spells causing the lack of fun on both sides of the screen.

More whitling I say, and less one-hit-wonders!

A'koss.