save or die 3.5

[Numion]

Amen, BryonD

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Celtavian and Psion...

I don't get your argument. Finger of Death has not changed. None of the [Death] spells have changed.

 

[A'koss]

Aw, I was really going to get into it today by BryonB beat me to it.

Though all I'll say here is that if damage can work at low and mid levels, there's no reason why it can't continue to work at high levels.


Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Are the people here somehow implying that we should argue for a change after the change is made?

We are arguing for keeping death spells that cause death now because after the fact is obviously too late. Disintegrate is not my concern, even though a level 6 spell should be able to kill a CR 7 creature in one hit. The new Disintegrate will probably not be able to kill a CR 7 Hill giant or quite a few other CR 7 creatures with one hit unless cast by a 25th level mage. What part are you not understanding?

I don't even know what a Disintegrate does for damage when a mage first gains access to it at lvl 11. I do know that a 25th level mage should almost guarantee a death with a lvl 6 spell on a CR 7 creature, giant or no.

I'm sorry if I feel Death spells should cause death, but it is a flavor thing for me. I would rather see hit die caps or some other means of balance than hit point damage. Hit point damage does not capture the flavor of a death spell. It becomes nothing more than a glorified evocation type spell requiring a fort save.

You just listed that a death spell can be empowered and maximize. That is utterly pathetic. It is a death spell that is treated exactly like a fireball or lightning bolt. I don't see them as the same, do you honestly see them in the same light? Are or are not the mechanics a reflection of the flavor of the spell? Is or is not a save resisting the spell?

 

[Celtavian]

Re

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.

Is there some reason why I can read this and find a problem with it and you can't?

Specifically the part about fireball does fire damage, but apparently snuffing out your life force does internal bleeding or negative energy damage. Correct me if I am wrong here, but don't we already have spells that do negative energy damage such as Enervation and Energy Drain. Fire damage is survivable, it does not cause death on a failed save. I don't know about you, but when a person saves versus fire, they are shielding vital areas from the brunt of the damage. There really is no way to do this when a death spell is cast upon you. The mere strain of actually resisting the spell causes damage, and failure to resist, well, it kills you.

Hmm...I wonder why all spells don't just do hit point damage? Maybe its a flavor reason, gee, I'm not sure.

Why don't all spells just become hit point damage? Everyone can be an evoker, but they'll have different names. How does that sound? You want everyone to be direct damage dealers with slightly different names? That is the vibe I am getting.

I'm sorry, snuffing out a life force is snuffing out a life force, not internal bleeding or negative energy damage. Internal bleeding comes from getting beat on with melee weapons or blasted with concussion spells. Negative energy damage comes from spells that blast you with negative energy. Death spells cause death on a failed save, not hit point damage. Dead, bye, bye. Say hello to my grandma for me, I dearly loved the woman. That is a death spell. Let the mechanic fit the name of the spell.

 

[Grog]

Re: What bugs me

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).

Are you kidding? 3E is by far the most lethal version of D&D ever made, especially at the higher levels. In 1E and 2E, after you hit 12th-15th level or so, it became almost impossible to fail saving throws. In 3E, characters regularly fail saving throws against instant death effects even at high levels.

It is getting more video-gamish in the sense that resurrecting dead characters is getting more and more common. It's obvious to me that 3E was designed with the idea in mind that characters would die and be resurrected every few levels. WotC increased the lethality of the game and "balanced" it by reducing the costs of being resurrected. This isn't an attitude towards game design that I like - if characters are dropping dead and popping right back up every few levels, it has a huge impact on campaign verisimilitude for me. Why do you think virtually no fantasy book series out there have characters with the ability to raise the dead? Because it saps dramatic tension and cheapens the challenges the characters face. If resurrections do happen, it's usually a major event with a huge impact on the character and the story as a whole (e.x. - Gandalf). It's not, "Whoops, looks like Bob was a little slow fighting that purple worm. Time to warm up the ol' holy symbol." Now, games aren't books and they have to balance drama with playability, but IMO WotC went way too far.

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.

But the thing is, there really is no danger. Once you pass a certain level, if you die, you can just be resurrected and continue playing. Sure, you'll lose a level, but that has no impact on your ability to eventually reach higher levels - it'll just take a little longer. But it does make it a lot harder for the DM to create any kind of a tense atmosphere when nothing short of a TPK (and sometimes not even that!) can permanently kill a character.

 

[BryonD]

Re: Re

Is there some reason why I can read this and find a problem with it and you can't?

Specifically the part about fireball does fire damage, but apparently snuffing out your life force does internal bleeding or negative energy damage. Correct me if I am wrong here, but don't we already have spells that do negative energy damage such as Enervation and Energy Drain. Fire damage is survivable, it does not cause death on a failed save. I don't know about you, but when a person saves versus fire, they are shielding vital areas from the brunt of the damage. There really is no way to do this when a death spell is cast upon you. The mere strain of actually resisting the spell causes damage, and failure to resist, well, it kills you.

Hmm...I wonder why all spells don't just do hit point damage? Maybe its a flavor reason, gee, I'm not sure.

Why don't all spells just become hit point damage? Everyone can be an evoker, but they'll have different names. How does that sound? You want everyone to be direct damage dealers with slightly different names? That is the vibe I am getting.

I'm sorry, snuffing out a life force is snuffing out a life force, not internal bleeding or negative energy damage. Internal bleeding comes from getting beat on with melee weapons or blasted with concussion spells. Negative energy damage comes from spells that blast you with negative energy. Death spells cause death on a failed save, not hit point damage. Dead, bye, bye. Say hello to my grandma for me, I dearly loved the woman. That is a death spell. Let the mechanic fit the name of the spell.

Obviously you have a severe problem with the concept of FLAVOR.

I offered a pair of flavor explanations among "any of a hundred other" possibilities. But somehow I am wrong because your imagination fails to accept these two specific possibilities.

I note that you still fail to answer to $1,000,000 question.
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?

If you require that [death] spells make you dead instead of simply doing HP damage TOWARD making you dead, then why do you not insist that [fire] spells causes burns that disable and lead to deadly infection? Why do you mistreat [fire] spells so?

The mere strain of actually resisting the spell causes damage, and failure to resist, well, it kills you.

Hmmm, book and page where this rule is stated please. I mean, clearly you wouldn't be trying to impose your narrow view on everyone else would you? So that statement MUST be an official rule and not just something you made up. (A little help, I think that rule is the paragraph under the rule about fire spells causing crippling burns)

Seriously, if you are mindlocked into a
EVERY
*POUNDS ON TABLE*
DEATH
*POUNDS ON TABLE*
SPELL
*POUNDS ON TABLE*
MUST
*POUNDS ON TABLE*
CAUSE
*POUNDS ON TABLE*
TOTAL
*POUNDS ON TABLE*
DEATH
*POUNDS ON TABLE*

attitude, then nothing anyone can say will sway you.

So please, just have fun letting your L11 wizards vaporize dragons and epic monsters.

In the mean time I'm going to go back to playing MY game (right after I renew my BADD membership)

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Re: re

Darn, where was I when you needed backup? Mord's disjunction is a textbook case of a spell that's just plain bad for the game. It blasts too much loot for PCs to use it. And it has the potential to damage the campaign too much for DMs to use it. Despite the fact that it's less effective, most players would take a Chained Greater Dispelling (or a chained, maximized Dispel Magic) instead of that any day of the week.

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.

 

[BryonD]

Celtavian,

Let me see if I can sum this up simply.

I think you are making two big mistakes.

1) You are demanding that the rules conform to YOUR imagination. And you have a very rigid interpretation of this one thing. This will not lead to fun. (As demonstrated by how clearly unhappy you are.) Therefore, it is bad.

2) You are getting hung up on the mechanics of disintegrate while talking about the flavor for [Death] spells.

 

[Grog]

Re: Re: Re

So please, just have fun letting your L11 wizards vaporize dragons and epic monsters.

Come on. I'm no big fan of save-or-die spells, but don't pretend that a dragon or an epic monster is going to even have a chance of failing a Fort save against a spell from anyone except maybe the most DC-cheesed out wizard. And against dragons and epic monsters, most of the time the wizard would have to get through SR too.

There are good arguments to be made for getting rid of save-or-die spells, but don't pretend that 11th level wizards were running around blasting Great Wyrms out of the sky with a single spell.