save or die 3.5

[WizarDru]

Re: Worth saying twice...

Don't worry...

In 3.5 all PCs will be encased in a transparent rubbery material that repels all hostile spells, spell-like abilities, attacks, supernatural and extraordinary abilities, and environmental hazards. This protection is conferred upon the PC's items as well. Nothing bad will ever happen to your precious PC again.

Yeah, 'cuz only real men don't kill PCs over and over again.

And for those who think that Dragons would never fail...everybody has a flat 5% chance. Period.

 

[Salthanas]

Greetings all

With regards to Save or Die spells I know one GM who came up with a system whereby if a character failed his save against certain save or die spells rather than being killed instantly the character suffered a gradual degredation until he died (usually in the regions of 1d6 rounds). Although not a perfect solution it gave characters a chance to attempt to negate the spell and also provided a certain amount of tension (knowing your characters going to die in three rounds helps to focus the mind a little )

yours Salthanas

 

[Tom Cashel]

Re: Re: Worth saying twice...

Yeah, 'cuz only real men don't kill PCs over and over again.

Congratulations. You can shift a hyperbole to its polar opposite while simultaneously twisting it into some kind of machismo-insult.

Quite a trick, that.

 

[A'koss]

That's not bad Salthanas.

I've been thinking of ways of keeping Save or Die type spells and rethinking them out somewhat. Having the spell inflict X HP or Y HD worth of HPs / round on a failed save until dead or countered (or perhaps allow a Save/round like Hold Person) is something I would have a lot easier time with.

Another way would be to introduce a HD or CR (a more appropriate measure of power) cap to these spells a la Circle of Death or a progressive one like Holy Word (kills up to X HD, Stuns up to Y HD, Dazes up to Z HD). To balance it out you could make them "No Save" those who fall into the death range of them (which would be against opponents who shouldn't be challenging you anyway).

A creature's HPs aren't the best measure of power which is why I don't care much for Power Word: Kill - it's essentially just a mage-killer spell (quickened damaging spell + PW:Kill is usually enough against a wizard).


Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think in PirateCat's campaign, if you get killed by a spell, your friends can save you in one round with a heal spell.

Or play a Field Medic from D20 Modern

 

[Grog]

Re: Re: Worth saying twice...

And for those who think that Dragons would never fail...everybody has a flat 5% chance. Period.

Not when SR is taken into account. 11th level wizard vs. Blue Great Wrym. Has to hit with the ranged touch attack (not hard, the dragon's touch AC is 6, but he still might roll a 1) - 95% chance. Needs a natural 20 to penetrate SR 31 - 5% chance. Dragon has a +29 Fort save - there's no way an 11th level wizard gets his DC higher than 31, so the dragon only fails on a natural 1 - 5% chance. Wizard's chance of killing the dragon with 3E disentegrate - .95 * .05 * .05 = 0.002375. Roughly a .2% chance. That's a far cry from a 5% chance.

So, 998 times out of a thousand, the spell has no effect, and the dragon then proceeds to have the wizard for lunch.

Mid-level wizards killing ultra-powerful monsters with one shot never happened anyway, so changing spells to "fix" that problem is dumb. As I said, the problem I have is that if that same wizard gets hit with a disentegrate spell, it's still a save or die spell for him, but a lot of the monsters he would have been able to kill with it before (medium-power monsters) won't be killed by it now. To me, that isn't fair to the wizard.

 

[BryonD]

Re: Re: Re: Worth saying twice...

To me, that isn't fair to the wizard.

To me it was not fair to the other characters that a wizard could take out those very high HP creatures with a single spell.

A reduction is not unfair if it is a move from "to much" to "accurate".

 

[Zappo]

I remember another thread on save or die spells where a poster proposed to make save or die spells deal ability damage of an appropriate type instead. The damage could be halved or something with a save, and if it was enough the character would be dead/disintegrated/dominated/stoned/whatever. This also integrated well with the idea of delayed death spells.

Example: finger of death. Ranged touch; deals 1d6 CON damage. If you fail a fortitude save, you suffer 1d6 further CON damage per round until dead, at which point you are dead as per a death effect (no raise, that sort of things).

 

[Celtavian]

Caster level is not significant.
Of course the save is usually good enough. You have completely missed the point.
You had already stated:


So it was you talking about how the fighter SHOULD be afraid.

PLUS this entire arguement is over the mechanics of the spell for when the target DOES fail. So anything you say about chances of making the save adds nothing.

I was answering your question. A level 20 fighter fears a level 6 spell less because his ability to resist it is substantially higher. A save is resistance just as hit points is better resistance to melee and energy damage. A level 20 fighter should still have to fear a Heightened spell, even if that spell is Charm Person. The Heighten Spell feat is there to make lower level spells more effective at higher levels, at least that is about the only reason I can think of for its existence.

Yes, you missed something. You used the rather ambiguous term "useful". Of course your L1 spells will be "useful" at L25.
But level fo the SPELL has a ton to do with level of the enemy.
When you are tenth level level your magic missles do not take out CR10 monsters the way they took out CR1 monsters at level 1. Does your L1 spell still do the same thing? Yes. Is your level 1 spell still "useful"? Yes. Does the level of the enemy have anythign to do with the level of the spell? Hell Yes! You are not going to waste round tossing MM at a CR10 monster. Please step in here and explain if I am wrong.

So do you still claim that level of the spell doesn't have anything to do with the level of the monster?

A spell that is the big bang for a L1 wizard drops to a back-up reserve or dust off spell for weaklings when that wizard hits L10.

The EXACT same thing happens to the spells that a L11 wizard uses when that wizard becomes L20 (or 25). The spell still works. It is still "useful". But it (if it is designed well) becomes a back-up reserve or dust off spell for weaklings.

Explain to me why a L6 spell should be any more potent vs a CR20 monster than a L1 spell should be against a CR10?

I don't necessarily think a level 6 spell should be more potent against a CR 20 monster than say a level 9 spell. As I previously stated, I don't mind the change to Disintegrate.

Let me ask, do you want to see all death spells reduced to hit point damage so that a wizard cannot kill a huge creature in one shot if it misses its save even if the spell is a lvl 8 or 9 spell? I would rather work with hit dice caps than hit point damage.

Look at the spell progression tables. You may notice that you have the same number (within a very small range) of your highest level spells throughout L1 to L20. It is not a bug, its a feature.

Now you use the term "useless". If you think that because a magic missle can not take out a CR10 monster it is now "useless", then I can't help you.

I am thinking more in terms of other spells. Feather Fall and Charm Person are still useful, though they are only level 1. You made it seem as though a lvl 6 spell should be a non-factor to a lvl 20 fighter. I highly disagree with that assertion.

A level 6 spell cast by a level 25 caster should still be a fearsome spell. I guarantee that a level 20 fighter still fears a level 25 mage casting Fireball if the fighter doesn't have Fire resistance. It may not kill them in one blow, but it wasn't likely to kill them in one blow at level 5 either. The spell scales and then stops at level 10 unless empowered or twinned. It is still very effective.

How many different flaws in this analogy do you want me to list?

The sword the fighter had a L10 probably IS a lot less effective than the sword he uses now.

A sword is a piece of equipment. A spell is a class abilities. The BAB, feats and HP that the fighter gains from levels 10 to 25 are what make him better.

A fighter gains itterative attacks that play a VERY big role in effectiveness.

Your "why" has already be answered above. Please show me where I am wrong without reosrting to comparing apples and popes.

The basic gist of what I am saying is that a fighter's melee abilities do not become less effective as he rises in level. They become more effective even though a fighter still melees just as he did at level 1, level 6 or any other level.

A mage gaining more spells does not necessitate those spells becoming less effective as he gains levels, rather they should become more effective as his ability scores go up and he applies metamagic feats. Just as a fighter's melee abilities get better as he gains better equipment, more hit points, and a highter number of attacks. (You do have to take into account equipment when comparing a fighter's abilities. They cannot survive without it.)

Of course not. I never said that. What I DO say is that you Level 5 and 6 spells should be LESS effective against the L25 fighter than they are against the L10 fighter.

You keep trying to describe a gradual and relative change in terms of absolutes (to you, a spell is "useful" or "useless"). That poerspective is severly flawed and, again, shows the weakness of the underlying argument.

No, I am just saying that level 5 and 6 spells are less effective by virtue of the fighters greater hit points, saving throws and equipment. Mission accomplished without changing the mechanic of the spell.

No, that is not it. You whole "only 10 ... do anything" reasoning is the flaw in your whole position.

A Level 25 fighter should not fear a L6 spell NEARLY AS MUCH as a L10 fighter. (Just as a L25 wizard should not fear being attacked by a L10 fighter nearly as much as a L10 wizard would)

If the terms "do anything" and "forget" are part of your arguement. Then you are WAY WAY off.

Yeah, did I disagree with this. Aren't you the one who said "a level 12 fighter doesn't fear a lvl 3 spell, so why should a lvl 20 ftr fear a lvl 6 spell"? I think a lvl 20 ftr should fear the lvl 6 and the lvl 3 spell if cast by a lvl 25 mage. They usually do if they don't have serious energy resistance.

Duh, It was YOUR analogy. I agree it is awful. That WAS the point.

There are alot of creatures that have alot of hit points as you rise in level. Giants are perhaps the cream of the crop save for dragons and dinosaurs, and undead would be a poor example because they are still going to die to Disintegrate irregardless of the change. As I stated so many times, my beef is not with Disintegrate, it is with the sudden push to reduce all death spells to hit point damage. IMO, it will ruin the flavor of a set of spells that have always been a part of D&D. I would be greatly disappointed to see such a change.

 

[Celtavian]

Here is a quote from Andy Collins from last nights Chat.

I'm sure you'll LOVE this one Celtavian.

wotc_andy says, "And if high-level characters stop relying on these spells, that's FINE--they're only 2nd level, after all."

I like some of Andy Collin's idea and he seems like a great guy, but he is not my favorite game designer. I was not impressed with the Epic Level Handbook which seemed disjointed and unfinished when I purchased it.

I miss the days when Monte Cook was at WotC. He seems to be the best of the game designers when it comes to game balance and creativity.