Save or die!

[kengar]

In the above example, as a DM, if you feel the dragon failing its Save is totally anticlimatic, you could always, well...fudge the roll!

While fairness is important in the game, part of your job as DM is to entertain. Despite the fact that some players might like the idea of effortlessly getting hold of the dragon's hoard, most would remember the dramatic combat more fondly.

Fudging is something each DM has to come to grips with themselves. Some roll in the open so everyone can see. Others hide the dice behind the screen and only roll for a "sound effect" while they decide what happens. Most DMs are somewhere in between.

When I DM, just as I might give a player character a break and let them manage to grab the end of the rope before falling into the lava pit IF they've been playing well (and not stupidly) up to that point; so might I also let the main baddie shrug off a spell that would ruin the entire climax of the adventure (or even the campaign).

I agree though that spells like "Power Word Kill" etc. are boring, though they do help balance the power levels of the classes. And, more directly to your point, yes; the rules "as written" support that kind thing a little more often than I'd like.

 

[Dextolen]

The DM Screen ain't just there to hide the maps!

 

[Psion]

A prime example of this problem is in computer games. You eventually get a Death spell/ability/materia/whatever, and you will never use it because all tough foes are immune and the foes that aren't immune are so weak that it's faster to just punch them.

Make the target invisible first! In FFVI, that makes it so they can't resist those nasty little destruction spells.

Of course this is total cheese. But who cares, it's a console game

(FFVI - the only game where it pays to actually make your enemy invisible.)

 

[Breakdaddy]

If you are going to fudge rolls, why not just tell the PCs before a battle with a major baddie to not even bother with instant kill spells, at least you won't make them waste a combat round for nothing.

 

[Psion]

Anyway, I think it's cheese to deny the players a chance to take down a powerful foe... especially considering the odds of it penetrating the SR, saves, and other defenses of such a powerful foe. If you have to be climactic:

1) Institute a rule that all lethal effects are delayed until the soliliquy is over.

2) Give powerful enemies a special quality that temporarily delays such effects and gives them beserk or haste qualities during their dying round.

3) Give the foe a "death throes" like ability.

4) All of the above.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Well, a DM who fudges dierolls (something I won't do) at least he could have the decency to fudge it back the next round.

I mean if the PCs defeat the baddie in the first round the DM can postpone (no tell) the bad save roll until the next instakill rears it's ugly head. That way the DM get to show off the monster's coolest abilities but still give the PCs the benefit of a bad save.

 

[Zappo]

Exactly how many long battles have You been in?

My fights usually don't last but 3 rounds, TOPS.

Really, Save or Die spells are what make spellcasters effective Against fighters. Their evoc spells get sucked up by those huge HPs. Several other spells require fort saves. So, what Do they use against the fighter types? What does your fighter have to fear, then?

'Oh, you have a bad willsave.' 'For what? Nothing uses Will, now that the Save or Die spells are gone'.

On the other hand, a fighter can seriously nuke a mage.

Yeah, that's why I don't ban them. See, they are not overpowered, they are just sooo annoying. I'd sorta like conversions of those spells where you get a nasty effect (though not necessarily death) if you fail the save, and a "fairly bad" effect if you pass it - just like fireballs.

I think they should lose in power and gain in reliability, basically. Yeah, tough creatures have SR and good saves, and characters can bump up their saves in a dozen ways, but the point is - they don't need to do anything like that against crossbows, why do they need to do it against spells? D&D is not designed to have characters killed in a single blow!

As for fudging, that's a bit like treaing symptoms instead of the disease. And it'd make things like videogames, where the death spell which mows through all goblins up to captain rank inexplicably fails against the commander.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

but the point is - they don't need to do anything like that against crossbows, why do they need to do it against spells? D&D is not designed to have characters killed in a single blow!

I disagree here. The difference between a crossbow and a nth level spell such as power word, kill is that any fool can shoot a crossbow (simple weapon proficiency, so unless you're a commoner you probably know how it works) but it takes years of magical study and the ability to channel great magical power to cast a high level instant death spell.

 

[Henry]

Well, a DM who fudges dierolls (something I won't do) at least he could have the decency to fudge it back the next round.

It is by far easier to get forgiveness, than permission.

While Save or die effects have been vastly curtailed in D&D 3E, they are still there. An errant Hold Person in the middle of combat can spoil the fun for many people. But it's not the DM who should be worried about the foes - it's the player characters, who must face save or die effects MANY times in their careers.

The art of when to fudge, when not to fudge, is a difficult one. I go without fudging as much as possible - I don't believe I've fudged a role in several months now. But the tool in there in my tool box, should a PC be cut down in the first round of a dramatic fight, or the players have been talking about how they are going to kick the enemies *** for the past two sessions now - what is more satisfying? To kill an enemy after several rounds of pitched battle, or to kill them with your first spell of the night thrown? It's rare, but I may do it if not doing so would mean wrapping up an hour early in an anticlimactic fashion.

As for save or die effects, I believe they should remain part of the game, but just not in such a prevalent amount. Save or die effects should rarely be used against PC's, and if they do, you need to have something planned to keep the fallen PC's player engaged and active. Perhaps, turn over one of your major combatants to him?

 

[Zappo]

I disagree here. The difference between a crossbow and a nth level spell such as power word, kill is that any fool can shoot a crossbow (simple weapon proficiency, so unless you're a commoner you probably know how it works) but it takes years of magical study and the ability to channel great magical power to cast a high level instant death spell.

OK, that's true, but I'm not talking about that. I'm fine with spells which kill a commoner or low-leveler instantly. Heck, magic missile can do that. I don't like a PC getting Held and CdG'ed during a minor encounter, for example. Beyond any in-game reasoning, I find it is against the style of D&D, which is: no hero gets killed unexpectedly in a minor random encounter through no fault of their own.