save or die 3.5
- Thread starter Shard O'Glase
- Start date
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Re: What bugs me
Well, how do you do it at the moment? Right now if someone makes their save vs a disintegrate they are likely to survive (the 5d6 damage which you take if you make the save, that is).
Or did you mean fail their save?
"The thin blue ray strikes you and you feel your face starting to rip off, your clothes shredding before the arcane might. Although you were not turned to dust like your friend rogue a moment earlier, you have been so badly damaged that you are weak as a kitten. Is that a power word that is forming on the wizards lips?"
I currently give fireballs and cones of cold "special effect" descriptions should they eliminate all the targets hps, and essentially disintegrate has become a direct damage spell with a particular effect when it eliminates all the targets hps (and is more dangerous because it doesn't have to take you to -10, apparently).
Cheers
Bryan Vining said:
Well, how do you do it at the moment? Right now if someone makes their save vs a disintegrate they are likely to survive (the 5d6 damage which you take if you make the save, that is).
Or did you mean fail their save?
"The thin blue ray strikes you and you feel your face starting to rip off, your clothes shredding before the arcane might. Although you were not turned to dust like your friend rogue a moment earlier, you have been so badly damaged that you are weak as a kitten. Is that a power word that is forming on the wizards lips?"
I currently give fireballs and cones of cold "special effect" descriptions should they eliminate all the targets hps, and essentially disintegrate has become a direct damage spell with a particular effect when it eliminates all the targets hps (and is more dangerous because it doesn't have to take you to -10, apparently).
Cheers
Re: Re: What bugs me
I don't know about you, but the loss of 40 to 60 hit points seems like a pretty negative effect to me. I describe it as a few broken bones and blood loss when it happens. Hit points are abstract, and the person is getting worn down.
How do you describe a person getting worn down by death spells when they miss their save? I thought the whole reason they incorporated damage dealing into death spells when you save was to show how much resisting a death spell takes out of you. Am I wrong in assuming this or what?
When did D&D become a game where high level folks don't fear each other? The whole reason a dragon stops to parley is because it fears that your wizard or priest might land a powerful death spell on it and vice versa. Situations where a person can just say, "I have enough hit points to survive and the cleric will heal me anyway" should not apply to everything. Death and hold spells are supposed to be dangerous, that is why they created counter spells to both.
As far as I can tell, the designers of 3.5 just can't stand anything that is too dangerous to the Players. Talk about trying to water down D&D. How can you make a fearsome priest of a death god if there are no save or die spells, just "save or possibly die, if you are already severely wounded, and the cleric can't heal you in time, and the death priest doesn't brick his damage roll." spells Even sounds pathetic written down.
BryonD said:
I don't know about you, but the loss of 40 to 60 hit points seems like a pretty negative effect to me. I describe it as a few broken bones and blood loss when it happens. Hit points are abstract, and the person is getting worn down.
How do you describe a person getting worn down by death spells when they miss their save? I thought the whole reason they incorporated damage dealing into death spells when you save was to show how much resisting a death spell takes out of you. Am I wrong in assuming this or what?
When did D&D become a game where high level folks don't fear each other? The whole reason a dragon stops to parley is because it fears that your wizard or priest might land a powerful death spell on it and vice versa. Situations where a person can just say, "I have enough hit points to survive and the cleric will heal me anyway" should not apply to everything. Death and hold spells are supposed to be dangerous, that is why they created counter spells to both.
As far as I can tell, the designers of 3.5 just can't stand anything that is too dangerous to the Players. Talk about trying to water down D&D. How can you make a fearsome priest of a death god if there are no save or die spells, just "save or possibly die, if you are already severely wounded, and the cleric can't heal you in time, and the death priest doesn't brick his damage roll." spells Even sounds pathetic written down.
Last edited:
Shard O'Glase
First Post
if any of my dragons stop to parley because there peing in their shorts woried the mage or cleric throws a spell their way I know I let my players get away with way too much.
And as for the effects, I'd say something like you feel a dark hand grasp and try to tear free what can only be described as your soul, but you're still too strong to go down here, and while you feel greatly weakened you still hang onto life.(take 125 pts of dmg)
And now it doesn't sound pathetic to me.
And as for the effects, I'd say something like you feel a dark hand grasp and try to tear free what can only be described as your soul, but you're still too strong to go down here, and while you feel greatly weakened you still hang onto life.(take 125 pts of dmg)
And now it doesn't sound pathetic to me.
BryonD
Hero
Re: Re: Re: What bugs me
How do you know? What if the target had 150 HP vs having 70?
But that misses the point. If you can survive a blow that would send a commoner to -55 HP, then it seems silly to get hung up on survival of a disintegrate.
I think you are a bit wrong. As you said above, HP are abstract. So why are you now forcing an interpretation on them? What you said is completely valid. And I use descriptions to that effect when the dramatic moment seems to fit. But it is just as reasonable to claim that the target avoided the full but suffered interal hemoraging or whatever other thematic "real" damage you what to dsescribe.
Well then where do you draw the line? Shouldn't a fireball be deadly? Do you let L12 fighters say "I have enough hit points to survive and the cleric will heal me anyway" whenever they are threatened by a fireball? Shouldn't they be afraid?
If you do not force L12 fighters to be afraid of L3 spells, then why do you need to force L20 fighters to be afraid of L6 spells? Shouldn't the wizard look to his L8 and L9 spells when taking on a L20 fighter?
Also, why are you talking about death spells? We were talking about disintegrate before.
Umm, again, the death spells have not really changed. Cleric of Death: Death Touch Ability: check, Slay Living: check, Destruction: check.
What Death spells got watered down?
Celtavian said:
How do you know? What if the target had 150 HP vs having 70?
But that misses the point. If you can survive a blow that would send a commoner to -55 HP, then it seems silly to get hung up on survival of a disintegrate.
I think you are a bit wrong. As you said above, HP are abstract. So why are you now forcing an interpretation on them? What you said is completely valid. And I use descriptions to that effect when the dramatic moment seems to fit. But it is just as reasonable to claim that the target avoided the full but suffered interal hemoraging or whatever other thematic "real" damage you what to dsescribe.
Well then where do you draw the line? Shouldn't a fireball be deadly? Do you let L12 fighters say "I have enough hit points to survive and the cleric will heal me anyway" whenever they are threatened by a fireball? Shouldn't they be afraid?
If you do not force L12 fighters to be afraid of L3 spells, then why do you need to force L20 fighters to be afraid of L6 spells? Shouldn't the wizard look to his L8 and L9 spells when taking on a L20 fighter?
Also, why are you talking about death spells? We were talking about disintegrate before.
Umm, again, the death spells have not really changed. Cleric of Death: Death Touch Ability: check, Slay Living: check, Destruction: check.
What Death spells got watered down?
Re
Bryon,
I am talking about death spells because from the sound of it they want to further alter pure death spells in the same manner they altered disintegrate. Though I don't mind the change to disintegrate, I don't want to see all death spells change.
Death spells would lose their unique flavor and players wouldn't fear them. Players don't fear Fireball after a certain level,, they don't fear falling, and they definitely don't fear lesser spells. They do fear death spells. Both sides fear death spells, and if a player or NPC has no reason to think a death spell will kill it, then what the hell is the use of having them called death spells?
Even the new disintegrate will just be alot of dice rolling and an average of 120 or so points of damage at 25 th level. At 25 th level, almost every monster they are fighting will have more than 120 hit points including the yard trash. An average Hill Giant (CR 7) creature will have a decent chance of surviving a disintegrate by a 25th level mage even if the misses his save. Any other type of giant will most likely survive a disintegrate from a high level mage.
High end dragons, say adult and beyond, will easily survive a disintegrate. Ancients and above will laugh at them, and epic level monsters won't even notice a disintegrate whether or not they save.
Do you think I want all death spells to become as unnoticeable as Disintegrate will now be at high level? A friggin 25th level caster will barely be able to destroy a CR 7 Hill Giant, and there are far worse creatures with far great hit points than a Hill Giant. That is not a fearsome mage, that is a laughable mage. Doesn't High SR, Huge Hit points, Very high favorable saves, and very powerful damage dealing capabilities enough to protect outsiders, dragons and other powerful creatures from death spells? C'mon now, it would provide the monsters would a ridiculous advantage to change them.
Bryon,
I am talking about death spells because from the sound of it they want to further alter pure death spells in the same manner they altered disintegrate. Though I don't mind the change to disintegrate, I don't want to see all death spells change.
Death spells would lose their unique flavor and players wouldn't fear them. Players don't fear Fireball after a certain level,, they don't fear falling, and they definitely don't fear lesser spells. They do fear death spells. Both sides fear death spells, and if a player or NPC has no reason to think a death spell will kill it, then what the hell is the use of having them called death spells?
Even the new disintegrate will just be alot of dice rolling and an average of 120 or so points of damage at 25 th level. At 25 th level, almost every monster they are fighting will have more than 120 hit points including the yard trash. An average Hill Giant (CR 7) creature will have a decent chance of surviving a disintegrate by a 25th level mage even if the misses his save. Any other type of giant will most likely survive a disintegrate from a high level mage.
High end dragons, say adult and beyond, will easily survive a disintegrate. Ancients and above will laugh at them, and epic level monsters won't even notice a disintegrate whether or not they save.
Do you think I want all death spells to become as unnoticeable as Disintegrate will now be at high level? A friggin 25th level caster will barely be able to destroy a CR 7 Hill Giant, and there are far worse creatures with far great hit points than a Hill Giant. That is not a fearsome mage, that is a laughable mage. Doesn't High SR, Huge Hit points, Very high favorable saves, and very powerful damage dealing capabilities enough to protect outsiders, dragons and other powerful creatures from death spells? C'mon now, it would provide the monsters would a ridiculous advantage to change them.
Last edited:
WizarDru
Adventurer
Re: Re
No, we want you to think that a 6th level spell should scale appropriately in power compared to 9th level spells and Epic Level spells. If a 25th level caster goes straight to a particular 6th level spell first, as opposed to any number of higher-level spells, then something is out-of-whack. The new version can be empowered and maximized, making it pretty darn lethal, so I'm not sure what the problem is.
Celtavian said:
No, we want you to think that a 6th level spell should scale appropriately in power compared to 9th level spells and Epic Level spells. If a 25th level caster goes straight to a particular 6th level spell first, as opposed to any number of higher-level spells, then something is out-of-whack. The new version can be empowered and maximized, making it pretty darn lethal, so I'm not sure what the problem is.
BryonD
Hero
Re: Re
Well, you said "Death and hold spells are supposed to be dangerous, that is why they created counter spells to both." So it seemed clear to me that you were specifically discussing Death spells. I am not aware that they have changed. If you don't mind the change to disintigrate, then just be content and do not jump to conclusions. As you said, Death spells have counters. So maybe they don't need the same revision.
But this doesn't answer the question of WHY. I think you are showing a bad side effect of metagame thinking. To 99% of the population, fireball IS a death spell. If you do not force L12 fighters to be afraid of L3 spells, then why do you need to force L20 fighters to be afraid of L6 spells?
Why is a fireball called a fire spell? Answer: It mode of harm is fire.
A death spell's mode of harm is snuffing out you life force.
If a fire spell does not do enough damage to kill you, you still took some fire damage and it remains very clear to anyone tending to you that you were attacked with a fire spell. If you take damage from a death spell, but not enough to kill you, it is trivially easy to describe the damage as negative energy or internal bleeding or any of a hundred other thematic descriptions of having your life force ripped from your body. And because this ALREADY happens when you make a save against a death spell, I can not see any problem with it.
Yeah for WotC!!!! 25th level wizards will need to use something better than a L6 spell to take on his foes.
The (3E) Hill Giant really has a neglible chance of survival if he fails. He is SUPPOSED to survive if he makes it.
But, duh, these are GIANTS. Specifically chosing giants as targets for Fort save type spells shows the weakness of the underlying arguement.
Ok, there is a worse example than giants: dragons.
But still, to everything you said my answer is: GREAT. L6 spells are not a threat to epic monsters. Hurray!!!
If your high level mage uses Disintegrate to attack giants then he is laughable not because he has weak spells, but becasue he is a tactical moron.
Your whole arguement has been that a single L6 spell should kill "powerful" creatures. Um, no.
Celtavian said:
Well, you said "Death and hold spells are supposed to be dangerous, that is why they created counter spells to both." So it seemed clear to me that you were specifically discussing Death spells. I am not aware that they have changed. If you don't mind the change to disintigrate, then just be content and do not jump to conclusions. As you said, Death spells have counters. So maybe they don't need the same revision.
But this doesn't answer the question of WHY. I think you are showing a bad side effect of metagame thinking. To 99% of the population, fireball IS a death spell. If you do not force L12 fighters to be afraid of L3 spells, then why do you need to force L20 fighters to be afraid of L6 spells?
Why is a fireball called a fire spell? Answer: It mode of harm is fire.
A death spell's mode of harm is snuffing out you life force.
If a fire spell does not do enough damage to kill you, you still took some fire damage and it remains very clear to anyone tending to you that you were attacked with a fire spell. If you take damage from a death spell, but not enough to kill you, it is trivially easy to describe the damage as negative energy or internal bleeding or any of a hundred other thematic descriptions of having your life force ripped from your body. And because this ALREADY happens when you make a save against a death spell, I can not see any problem with it.
Yeah for WotC!!!! 25th level wizards will need to use something better than a L6 spell to take on his foes.
The (3E) Hill Giant really has a neglible chance of survival if he fails. He is SUPPOSED to survive if he makes it.
But, duh, these are GIANTS. Specifically chosing giants as targets for Fort save type spells shows the weakness of the underlying arguement.
Ok, there is a worse example than giants: dragons.
But still, to everything you said my answer is: GREAT. L6 spells are not a threat to epic monsters. Hurray!!!
If your high level mage uses Disintegrate to attack giants then he is laughable not because he has weak spells, but becasue he is a tactical moron.
Your whole arguement has been that a single L6 spell should kill "powerful" creatures. Um, no.
Similar Threads
