save or die 3.5

[WizarDru]

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.

I didn't say one roll is or isn't fun. I said one roll, in context, isn't fun, for my group and I. The problem is that, at high levels (and let's be clear here, 11/12th is NOT high-level, as some seem to think) many encounters revolve around who wins initiative. Enemy mage or monster wins? One to two dead players are possible. Players win? Reverse. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Of course, since death becomes a revolving door at high-levels, death is just really an advanced form of uncosciousness. If you enjoy that style of play, then that's fine. But in my experience, it's not really that enjoyable. The fact that I tend to make death more traumatic and have more consequences is part of the way that I make the risk more important to my players. The 'risk' you cite isn't really risk at all...unless you mean risk that the player who's character died will get bored and fall asleep while waiting to be brought back in by a raise dead, rez or true rez.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

And, by 18th-20th level, that's probably not unusual for a fighter--+6 Bracers of Health, and +2 to +4 in tomes depending upon starting con. A barbarian, can do the same with less con. A dwarf is almost certain to have enough hit points. (He's also almost certain not to fail the save but that's beside the point). And that's assuming a system roughly equivalent to 25 or 28 point buy. Any higher than that, and fighters will often have that many hit points without any tomes.

As for being unwounded, that may be a little more problematic but it's fairly typical for round 1 and that's also the time that disintegrate is most likely to be successful considering that, even at 18th level a lot of wizards won't have precise shot.

Right now a maximized disintegrate can inflict 240 HPs at 20th level. You would have to be one hell of a buff fighter (a 24 Con with avg. HPs at 20th level), and unwounded, to survive failing a save against that.

 

[Celtavian]

The change to Disintegrate seemed reasonable. I can explain this in the course of a game with severe wounding because only certain amount of matter was destroyed.Now, for spells like Finger of Death and Wail of Banshee, it becomes more difficult to explain why they are still alive after failing to resist the spell.

I don't know about most folks on this board, but a saving throw has always been a measure of resistance. It would really change the flavor of save or die spells if a player could both resist with a save and by having alot of hit points.

I keep hearing that save or die spells ruin epic level play, but that is poppycock. Any epic level player worth a damn has magic items or spells that either provide complete protection against death spells and effects, a means of gaining a ressurection, items that raise their saving throws to obscene levels, or other means of avoiding death. I keep hearing about casters with obsene DC's, yet no mention of warrior types with obscene saves. I have played high level characters, and it goes both ways.

Save or die spells are about game flavor. If they didn't put your life at risk, they would be nothing more than glorified direct damage spells that fighters and clerics would easily survive whether or not they made their save and wizards and rogues would suffer badly from, but might not die, whether or not they made their save. The entire fearsome nature of death spells would be reduced to dice rolling. That would not make me happy at all.

I am sorely against any change to true save or die spells. Disintegrate and Implosion are fine to change. I hope they don't completely eliminate the flavor or risk of the true death spells.

 

[jasamcarl]

The change to Disintegrate seemed reasonable. I can explain this in the course of a game with severe wounding because only certain amount of matter was destroyed.Now, for spells like Finger of Death and Wail of Banshee, it becomes more difficult to explain why they are still alive after failing to resist the spell.

I don't know about most folks on this board, but a saving throw has always been a measure of resistance. It would really change the flavor of save or die spells if a player could both resist with a save and by having alot of hit points.

I keep hearing that save or die spells ruin epic level play, but that is poppycock. Any epic level player worth a damn has magic items or spells that either provide complete protection against death spells and effects, a means of gaining a ressurection, items that raise their saving throws to obscene levels, or other means of avoiding death. I keep hearing about casters with obsene DC's, yet no mention of warrior types with obscene saves. I have played high level characters, and it goes both ways.

Save or die spells are about game flavor. If they didn't put your life at risk, they would be nothing more than glorified direct damage spells that fighters and clerics would easily survive whether or not they made their save and wizards and rogues would suffer badly from, but might not die, whether or not they made their save. The entire fearsome nature of death spells would be reduced to dice rolling. That would not make me happy at all.

I am sorely against any change to true save or die spells. Disintegrate and Implosion are fine to change. I hope they don't completely eliminate the flavor or risk of the true death spells.

Actually, the major problem is with monsters. These spells don't make the game too hard thanks to True Res, but too easy, and far too random, especially when a high-level combat ends in one round. Disintergrate was a major part of the problem, because many monster have death immunity at this level, but very rarely did i reat 'disintergrate' in an ELH monster description, or really anything at above CR15. Thanks to True Strike, at most this trick could take 2 rounds and have a great chance of success. Two round combats aren't fun. And again its just too random; a sense of danger is fine, but real tension comes from unexpected consequences of player choice. The more rolls, the more choice.

 

[Etan Moonstar]

In order to avoid further hijacking this thread, I created another thread in the Rules Forum and copied/pasted the previous messages about mirror image in this thread to the new one. My most recent reply is there as well, so click here if you're interested in the message/mirror image debate.

And now, without further interruption, we return you to your thread on save vs. death.

 

[Larry Fitz]

WizDru,

I like a non-revolving door myself, I play in the Twin Crowns world where everyone gets five lives. After five deaths, you don't come back. I like SoD spells, not to use them so much as to have players know they are out there. That for me is really cool. The fear that they might have to save or die. And yes if they can pull one off on the BBEG then more power to them. In my world SoD spells are rare because using them is a capital crime, punishable by death. I reaized I sounded a bit patroniozing and I apologize for that. We have fun our way, you have fun yours, and ... well... we'll all have fun I guess...

 

[Celtavian]

Actually, the major problem is with monsters. These spells don't make the game too hard thanks to True Res, but too easy, and far too random, especially when a high-level combat ends in one round. Disintergrate was a major part of the problem, because many monster have death immunity at this level, but very rarely did i reat 'disintergrate' in an ELH monster description, or really anything at above CR15. Thanks to True Strike, at most this trick could take 2 rounds and have a great chance of success. Two round combats aren't fun. And again its just too random; a sense of danger is fine, but real tension comes from unexpected consequences of player choice. The more rolls, the more choice.

As I stated, I don't mind the changes to Disintegrate and Implosion. I can picture a creature surviving a disintegrate, especially an extremely large and powerful creature like a dragon. Its many of the other pure death effect spells that I don't want to see changed.

 

[Numion]

Maybe he is. Maybe the monster he casts the spell on is just one of several. Ever think about that?

Then hobviously the wizard shouldn't be using disintegrate but, say, a cone of cold, for example? Using suboptimal spells in examples isn't a way to balance them.

Maybe he had to cast the spell to save his life. A monster closes to meele range, he's all out of escape spells, none of his friends can get there in time to save him... He casts Disintegrate, in the old rules the monster is killed and he's saved, in the new rules it shrugs it off and crushes him to pulp next round.

I still don't see why it's so important to the mages viability that they should be able to kill any monster in one round. No other class can do it, so your example is pretty flimsy. You're saying in your example basically that a wizard should be able to take monsters who can crush him to a pulp in a single round on his own.

No other class can do it. Why should the wizard?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Maybe he had to cast the spell to save his life. A monster closes to meele range, he's all out of escape spells, none of his friends can get there in time to save him... He casts Disintegrate, in the old rules the monster is killed and he's saved, in the new rules it shrugs it off and crushes him to pulp next round.

I know I'm just picking on your wording, but I hope you'll forgive me!

The thing is, any of the monsters which are likely to "crush him to a pulp" have probably got Fort saves high enough that they are not going to be disintigrated anyway!

 

[Plane Sailing]

Oooh, I've just thought of a possible 3.5e disintegrate house rule!

Since it is a ranged touch attack, remove the saving throw! Therefore it becomes a ranged touch attack which needs to hit a single target and does shedloads of damage (possibly disintergrating said target).

It always bugged me that disintegrate required a roll to hit AND a saving throw (same as it bugged me for flaming bolts). Bring it into line with other spells I say! Hit or ST, not both!

(OK, that's a little tongue in cheek after all, inflict spells both require a hit and give a ST)

Cheers