Save or die spells/effects

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I really hope not. Ability damage is in many ways worse than save or die. At least with save or die, your saving throws are based on your level. Your ability scores are basically the same at 20th level as they were at 1st level - 5 stat bumps to distribute among six stats doesn't make a lot of difference. One maximized ray of enfeeblement can completely shut down a melee character...and that's just a penalty, not actual damage.

Ability damage is treatable, however, if it is temporary, using magic or just time. You can still try to kick butt with a huge load of penalties.

(I think the problem with RoE is the lack of a save. Maximized spells usually have a lower save DC than other spells of the same total level.)

 

[Melan]

The Fun Engineers at Wizards of the Coast will no doubt choose to remove all remaining save or die elements from the game and replace them with Hp, ability score damage or negative modifiers. Suffering adversity detracts from the fun of cultivating a character build, and is a deprotagonising element, so it it will be the first on the chopping block. Right after Vancian magic, I mean. Objectively speaking, more fun can be had if they go away.

 

[Li Shenron]

Now finally my question:
Do you believe 4th edition will e.g. have some sort of ability damage (or to hit penalties) instead of paralyse/stun yes/no spells? Or would you expect another mechanic?

I think it will follow 3.5 footsteps and remove more save-or-die spells.

Despite save-or-die being sometimes frustratins, I believe the trend of removing them is a bad idea, since it just heads toward homogeinity. In pursue of making all things balanced, it makes all things similar...

 

[WhatGravitas]

Eventually, you can have a choice to do second saving throw next round; if you will pass - you are free of all effects; if you will fall - you will die.

or some failed save-or-die save consequenses can be reduced, eg. sleep / ghoul touch - not to sleep, but forced to total defence.

Both are nice ideas (and make dispel magic even more important).
However, save-or-die effects are important, because they take a creature out of combat - whereas damage usually does not impair a creature's combat ability. Even ability damage doesn't do that much, unless it comes in loads and is targetted correctly.
Therefore, for the removal of save-or-die, we probably need some kind of "death spiral" for damage, to make high-level damage spells matter more than "softeners" for the melee-guys.

 

[Psion]

Objectively speaking, more fun can be had if they go away.

Objectively speaking?

I don't see it making the game more fun. I think you mean subjectively speaking.

 

[hong]

Objectively speaking?

I don't see it making the game more fun. I think you mean subjectively speaking.

Melan is trolling.

Hi, Melan!

 

[Melan]

I am entirely serious. The game could probably benefit from an universal resource that would be reduced by adversity and increased by being cool and awesome. Maybe we could call it Victory Points, as in our good friend Victoria Bitter:

 

[Varianor Abroad]

I think it will follow 3.5 footsteps and remove more save-or-die spells.

Despite save-or-die being sometimes frustratins, I believe the trend of removing them is a bad idea, since it just heads toward homogeinity. In pursue of making all things balanced, it makes all things similar...

Now, to step back a moment, what happens if you replace "homogeneity" in the above with "consistency"? D&D 3.5 has amazing consistency of the rules. (A few corner cases excepted.) Far more than in previous editions. I no longer have to write down my bizarre rulings and remember them because the rules are so clear. The two to three players at my table who always were suspicious that I was out to hose them have stopped saying anything. The principles behind the rules are very clear now that I have mastery of them.

I think that a lot of good has come out of the consistency. Look at the explosion of options for the players. Look at the gazillions of sourcebooks available. Should the beholder still have a death ray? Sure. Is the new disintegrate (where you take 20d6 if you save) still a fearful spell for players? Yep. You could make it 40d6, save for half and people would freak.

Drastically reducing save or dies would IMO improve the game as long as the remainder were really special. And struck more fear into the hearts of my players.

 

[jasin]

In general terms, where I'd like death attacks to go is in the direction of the Death domain power or power word kill.

Instead of opening up with a save or die, and then going back to dealing damage if they save, you first soften them up with less powerful but harder-to-ignore-completely attacks... and then blow them away with a spectacular finishing move!

 

[Li Shenron]

Now, to step back a moment, what happens if you replace "homogeneity" in the above with "consistency"?

You don't need to be homogeneous to be consistent.

Several spells were changed by the revision because of some problems.

Harm had a problem that whatever powerful the target, it was always reduced to a few hit points. The only thing that could save it was spell resistance (or some protection from spells/items). High AC only delayed the problem because the cleric could make touch attacks over and over. The real "bug" is in the rule that touch spells don't discharge if you miss, but let's not engage in a discussion about that. The problem that WotC wanted to get rid of was simply "Harm is not less dangerous for more powerful foes (SR aside)". A simple saving throw would have made more powerful foes more resistant to Harm, problem solved.

Instead, making Harm a damage-dealer very simply took away what was special about Harm. Harm isn't Harm anymore in 3.5, it's just another damage-dealer, with minor differences with others.

Save or die spells have a similar problem: they "bypass hit points". Someone believes that this shouldn't happen, but I don't see why, since other spells bypass the saving throw, and others bypass SR.

Too many save-or-die spells in the game is boring, but too many damage-dealer is just as boring.

D&D 3.5 has amazing consistency of the rules. (A few corner cases excepted.) Far more than in previous editions. I no longer have to write down my bizarre rulings and remember them because the rules are so clear.

I never had to do that in 3.0 either. Honestly I have a hard time believing that your players stopped being suspicious because of the 3.5 revision, but if you say so...

I think that a lot of good has come out of the consistency. Look at the explosion of options for the players. Look at the gazillions of sourcebooks available.

Let's not discuss this, because to me it's a gazillion of useless additions with a few interesting exceptions, but also I would have expected just the same "explosion" if there had never been a revision.

Drastically reducing save or dies would IMO improve the game as long as the remainder were really special. And struck more fear into the hearts of my players.

My mileage is different, changing those spells had made our game less attractive, and in fact after less than a year we dropped 3.5 and went back to 3.0.