save or die 3.5

[sithramir]

WIZARDS

I think save or die spells should stay in. I agree that a wizard can die in one round to a fighter so should be able to do the same thing back to him. Yes you might have fought a wizard and he lived a long long time but he was probably prepared, was in an area that provided him a protective benefity, had a few little helpers to keep the fighters off him for a round or two, or your group just didn't handle the situation right.

If for instance you walked into his study while he was reading and he had no cohorts and your fighter charged with an attack he probably either will die or have another round to live trying to suffer his concentration to do anything useful which will probably be escape assuming he wins init on the fighter before he's chopped. 18th level wizard with say 14 con = 108 hps max? well assuming he doesn't have max d4's with less ormore con he's quite easily in the range for a decent fighter at 18th level to smash through.

 

[Numion]

Re: WIZARDS

I think save or die spells should stay in. I agree that a wizard can die in one round to a fighter so should be able to do the same thing back to him.

But the wizzie still can off the fighter in one round, with a little luck. Just like the fighter needs a lot of luck to kill a wizard in one round due to displacement, stoneskin etc.

If for instance you walked into his study while he was reading and he had no cohorts and your fighter charged with an attack he probably either will die or have another round to live trying to suffer his concentration to do anything useful which will probably be escape assuming he wins init on the fighter before he's chopped. 18th level wizard with say 14 con = 108 hps max? well assuming he doesn't have max d4's with less ormore con he's quite easily in the range for a decent fighter at 18th level to smash through.

So what? If the wizard caught the fighter with his dick hanging out she'd kill him in one round too. A much more realistic incident than the one described by you, BTW, since wizards, unlike fighters, can teleport and scry.

Remember also that the fighter would have to deal that much damage in one strike, since only a partial action given in the surprise round. After that the wizard can just leave.

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by 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.

That would be very unusual for a PC who wasn't built at 20th level and was acutally played to 20th level who had to trade up tons of lower level items (at a significant discount) for increasingly better ones. Furthermore, it looks like these items are getting more expensive in 3.5e further reducing the chances of anyone seeing that kind of Con at that level.

Originally posted by Celtavian:

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.

It bothers people who play epic levels because those that do know that the opening round from enemy spellcasters almost inevitably starts off with Disjunction, or some other dispel effect, followed by the Save or Die/Nerf spells. Again, virtually all spellcaster tactics at those levels are geared around making the Save or Die/Nerf spells work because they are *that good* at those levels. Timstop - Disjunction (there goes all your spell buffs and likely a whole swak of your magic items) - Wail of the Banshee (should kill the wizard, possibly the rogue) - Dominate Person (Fighter) - Maze (Cleric) + whatever quickened spells you can get in the mix. Gang up with the dominated Fighter and your henchmen to kill the Rogue (if necessary) and the Cleric when he returns from the Maze (counterspell the cleric's dispels/spells). It could be over that easy.

Originally posted by jasamcarl:

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.

Preach it brother!

Originally posted by Shard O'Glase:

I really think save or dies should go, but they also need to beef up the wizards defense a little so he doesn't live in a perpetual state of save or die.

Very HL and EL play runs into a number of problems that aren't going to go away in 3.5e and this is one of them. I don't see anything wrong with giving wizards d6 HD and Rogues d8 HD. IME, Rogues tend to be nerfed somewhat at higher levels due to the increasing numbers of monsters you find with Crit immunity (or are just very big and hard to crit), NPCs with fortification armor, and so on.

This is really only a patch fix however, I really think the game needs to be adjusted at the core to make HL play more fun and do whatever it takes make battles last longer. The fact that with a lotta luck and a lotta work you got your PC up to 20th level (and really, how often does that happen?) only to find that you can still be off'd in one attack?

The "easy to die, easy to come back" merry-go-round is not fun for me either. I mean, technically, no major NPC/PC would ever truly die unless of old age (maybe). It's virtually impossible to put anyone down permanently (barghest lunches are the closest at 50/50).

Maybe 4e will be the guiding light...


Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[Bryan Vining]

What bugs me

Ya know, the problem with this change to disintegrate is not mechanical (though I could probably find something to gripe about there), it's that it's a meta-gaming change that makes no logical sense in game context.

How do I describe what happens to someone who makes their save vs a disintegrate spell and survives? They're partially disintegrated? Half of 'em's gone, but they're still kicking ass? I mean, yes, I can come up with a work-around that will make sense (it's not that hard), but, if the goal is to improve the game, I shouldn't have to.

Granted, I haven't read the new spell description, but in the older editions the save or die made sense. If you got stuck in that 10 ft. cube, you were toast, simple enough.

Personally, I don't have a problem with save or die spells. Used properly, they're fine. They shouldn't be used on low-level characters (obviously), but they're fine when dealing with high-level characters who a) have a much better chance of not dying and b) will usually have the resources to get themselves raised/resurrected. I've not heard this specifically, but I rather suspect that part of the reason save or dies were put in the game to being with was to keep high-level characters from spending too much of their gold. It's a common theme in many of the OAD&D game elements.

Some folks complain that the game is getting more video-gamish, and there's something to that point. Death is becoming a more and more remote possibility for PCs with each change of the game (if you don't belive me, try playing some 1E for a while). This is neither good nor bad intrinsically (as it's a matter of taste), but it does change the feel of the game. Me, I like a little danger. It makes having a high-level character rarer and, therefore to my mind, more rewarding.

 

[Celtavian]

re

It bothers people who play epic levels because those that do know that the opening round from enemy spellcasters almost inevitably starts off with Disjunction, or some other dispel effect, followed by the Save or Die/Nerf spells. Again, virtually all spellcaster tactics at those levels are geared around making the Save or Die/Nerf spells work because they are *that good* at those levels. Timstop - Disjunction (there goes all your spell buffs and likely a whole swak of your magic items) - Wail of the Banshee (should kill the wizard, possibly the rogue) - Dominate Person (Fighter) - Maze (Cleric) + whatever quickened spells you can get in the mix. Gang up with the dominated Fighter and your henchmen to kill the Rogue (if necessary) and the Cleric when he returns from the Maze (counterspell the cleric's dispels/spells). It could be over that easy.

Time Stop is being changed. As far as I am concerned, they can throw out or alter Mordenkainen's Disjunction. The spell is poorly designed in my opinion, and does nothing to enhance a game. I used Mordenkainen's Disjunction twice on my players and haven't done so again. The spell did nothing but put sour looks on their faces and make them pissed off after losing several nice magic items. It is easier to come back from the dead than to recover from a Mordenkainen's Disjunction. That is the spell they should alter or eliminate.

I didn't even think of the bad effects Mordenkainen's Disjunction because it is almost an unwritten, unspoken house rule that no one ever uses that spell. If the spell is used by a PC, then it will used by an NPC. We all have but eliminated the spell due to damage it does to a single encounter. In a D&D game, it is worse to lose your magic at high levels than just about any other type of effect.

Get rid of Mord's Disjunction, keep true death spells save or die.

 

[Psion]

DM: "Nice! He failed his save...but you didn't manage to kill him."
Player: "It's called 'Finger of Death.' Why is there no death?:

Marketing. "Finger of not feeling so good" didn't test well with the focus groups.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Psion,

Hahaha.

That is too true. Saves are a measure of resistance. It will be real stupid if you fail to resist a Finger of Death and don't die. They better change the name of the spell or it will be unexplainable.

 

[WizarDru]

Re: re

I didn't even think of the bad effects Mordenkainen's Disjunction because it is almost an unwritten, unspoken house rule that no one ever uses that spell.

Man, where were you when I needed you? Everyone thought I was some sort of moron for saying exactly this in a thread a few days ago.

 

[Fenes 2]

Re: Re: re

Man, where were you when I needed you? Everyone thought I was some sort of moron for saying exactly this in a thread a few days ago.

Anything that lessens the fun of your players is a no-no in my book.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I'm sorta in agreement with you guys. I never cast it on my players, I never cast it as a player and the few times it was cast on me I felt like doing somehting really childish.

It's the unfun spell of legend no one really casts it.