Save or die!
- Thread starter Zappo
- Start date
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Actually save-or-die spells were powered UP in 3rd ed, at least at higher ends. In 2nd ed, high level characters stood a damn good chance of surviving a save-or-die spell, fighters most of all. Nowadays, with the ability of a caster to pump up his save DCs, that becomes much more unlikely.
Possibilities:
1) Spells with a "save or have X affect you" cause ability damage. Medusa's gaze reduces dex, dominate reduces (presumably) wisdom, most instant-death effects reduce constitution. This would represent different aspects of the character being targeted and worn down(a half-dominated individual would be easier to bluff etc.). The problem is that a newly dominated subject would be extremely easy to bluff, by anyone. Perhaps this isn't a bad thing.
2) Such spells target hit points, with the desired effect taking place as the target reaches zero hps. This would represent the defense of the character being gradually worn down, until a decisive attack breaks through, whether that be a domination effect, or weapon attack or whatever. Every spell would probably be assigned a formulaic damage (like caster level * d6 to a maximum of 10d6, probably more). An interesting offshoot of this would be that casters would be more willing to sacrifice damage spells for utility spells (because the utility spells also become damage spells). It would be very difficult to balance the damage out so that combat spells still serve a purpose though, while not making utility spells useless against creatures with high hps. Perhaps an entire secondary set of 'mystic' hitpoints? Perhaps making barbarians and fighters more resistant to spells is a good thing?
Both methods would have a save-for-half damage.
Possibilities:
1) Spells with a "save or have X affect you" cause ability damage. Medusa's gaze reduces dex, dominate reduces (presumably) wisdom, most instant-death effects reduce constitution. This would represent different aspects of the character being targeted and worn down(a half-dominated individual would be easier to bluff etc.). The problem is that a newly dominated subject would be extremely easy to bluff, by anyone. Perhaps this isn't a bad thing.
2) Such spells target hit points, with the desired effect taking place as the target reaches zero hps. This would represent the defense of the character being gradually worn down, until a decisive attack breaks through, whether that be a domination effect, or weapon attack or whatever. Every spell would probably be assigned a formulaic damage (like caster level * d6 to a maximum of 10d6, probably more). An interesting offshoot of this would be that casters would be more willing to sacrifice damage spells for utility spells (because the utility spells also become damage spells). It would be very difficult to balance the damage out so that combat spells still serve a purpose though, while not making utility spells useless against creatures with high hps. Perhaps an entire secondary set of 'mystic' hitpoints? Perhaps making barbarians and fighters more resistant to spells is a good thing?
Both methods would have a save-for-half damage.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Maybe you should always have some henchmen for the "Big Bad Guy", and when the group is fighting against them, the "Big Bad Guy" arrives, makes his nasty comments, and uses his powers (be it swinging his Greatsword, casting a Quickened Fireball followed by Maximized Cone of Cold, use his breathweapon or whatever he might do).
Thus, the Wizard/Cleric/whatsoever is still busy, and might not have the time to use the Save or Die spell in his first round.
Isn't this the way it works usually in movies?
Mustrum Ridcully
PS [EDIT]:
From experience with our "Powergaming Campaign" (no story, but big baddies, with CRs up to 9 levels above our character), I can tell: If you tend to always throw heavy and dangerous foes against your opponents, where chances are great that the party is destroyed if they not hit hard, then they will ALWAYS hit hard, and the first thing to do for them is throwing the most nasty spells at the opponent - they know they won't need the spells after the combat, and if they don't use then nom, they might never be able to cast them again...
Thus, the Wizard/Cleric/whatsoever is still busy, and might not have the time to use the Save or Die spell in his first round.
Isn't this the way it works usually in movies?
Mustrum Ridcully
PS [EDIT]:
From experience with our "Powergaming Campaign" (no story, but big baddies, with CRs up to 9 levels above our character), I can tell: If you tend to always throw heavy and dangerous foes against your opponents, where chances are great that the party is destroyed if they not hit hard, then they will ALWAYS hit hard, and the first thing to do for them is throwing the most nasty spells at the opponent - they know they won't need the spells after the combat, and if they don't use then nom, they might never be able to cast them again...
Last edited:
Thanee
First Post
Yeah, save-or-die type spells can pretty much put a very anticlimatic end to a big opponent. We had this happen once or twice (I remember one particular Mind Blast, which screwed the whole opposition (three persons) with the single hard to beat DC rolled so far from our Psion... his average is more like... uhm... 4 on the d20, when it comes to Mind Blast DCs 
). Usually, our bigger fights are pretty cool, tho.
The two fights against my Drow Sorcerer/Archmage NPC (biggest NPC I've used in our campaign), for example, were both very good. The combat last for several hours (real time) and dozens of rounds (game time) with retreat, pursuit, regroup, healing, and so on. I wonder, when the party wíll finally find a way to put an end to him (always reappearing, due to Clone
)!
Bye
Thanee
). Usually, our bigger fights are pretty cool, tho.The two fights against my Drow Sorcerer/Archmage NPC (biggest NPC I've used in our campaign), for example, were both very good. The combat last for several hours (real time) and dozens of rounds (game time) with retreat, pursuit, regroup, healing, and so on. I wonder, when the party wíll finally find a way to put an end to him (always reappearing, due to Clone
)!Bye
Thanee
Al said:
I don't like them myself. We had one guy in our Arteeteetee'o'ee'ee campaign make an 8th level archer who copped a disintegrate spell halfway through his first session. It was silly. There should be more to losing a character than fluffing one die roll.
I somehow suspect that the fighter's player would have a rather different opinion of that battle....
Why not? Fighters basically go from getting one attack per round to getting four, and with more damage per attack. They're still pretty awesome. Why shouldn't wizards get more spells that deal more hit point damage, as opposed to a few instakill spells?
This just points to the general problem that in D&D, offense outpaces defense at high levels (see related thread on SKR's ranting). Save-or-die effects are the most egregious manifestation of this problem. However, this indicates to me that the best solution is to rein in offense in general, not to ignore save-or-die effects.
... or change the rules.
I really like the idea of changing "save or die" spells to ability drain. I may even run this by my group.
My inclination would be to make it possible for "save or die" to have full effect on a good roll, and about 1/4 to 1/3 effect if save succeeds. Perhaps 2D6 + (1/2 caster level) on a failed save, 1D3 on a success? This lets a lvl 4 cleric with an average roll paralyze an average person (Dex 10) using Hold Person.
How would spell level affect the scale? (Or would it only change the final effect?)
What would you do with spells such as Disintegrate or Slay Living, which already have effects specified if the save fails? Perhaps apply that effect to both fail and success?
Also, I'm assuming the ability damage expires after the spell duration. Yes? No? Is this a bookkeeping nightmare?
. . . . . . . -- Eric
My inclination would be to make it possible for "save or die" to have full effect on a good roll, and about 1/4 to 1/3 effect if save succeeds. Perhaps 2D6 + (1/2 caster level) on a failed save, 1D3 on a success? This lets a lvl 4 cleric with an average roll paralyze an average person (Dex 10) using Hold Person.
How would spell level affect the scale? (Or would it only change the final effect?)
What would you do with spells such as Disintegrate or Slay Living, which already have effects specified if the save fails? Perhaps apply that effect to both fail and success?
Also, I'm assuming the ability damage expires after the spell duration. Yes? No? Is this a bookkeeping nightmare?
. . . . . . . -- Eric
How about on a 'Save or Die' the results are not instantaneous, ie. drop the recipient to -1 HP and unconciousness. Then they have ~10 rounds to stablize or be healed. For the turning to stone type of spells, immediately drop all STR DEX CON stats by 10(or what ever appropriate value you decide) and each of STR DEX CON decreases by 1 each round after that until either they become stone (0 in STR DEX CON) or a stone to flesh (or other appropriate spell) is cast on them.
jodyjohnson
Adventurer
Dramatic Opponent Template
I have no problem with general mooks, fillers, underlings and wandering monsters getting held, petrified, disintegrated, power word killed, polymorphed into fish, phantasmal killed, slay living'd, destruction'd, imploded, etc. In encounters where the opponents are not the climax of the adventure those are all fine. When it happens in the surprise action to your main villain I think it's less fun for everyone.
I'd like to see a Dramatic Opponent Template where the players know that these save-or-die spells will have less than dramatic results. There are a whole range of new impairment types in 3e that could be more widely used. Exhausted, fatigued, slowed, hindered, shaken, negative enhancement modifiers (not ability damage - they don't stack), entangled, dazed, dazzled, and probably a few I forgot.
__________________________________________
Dramatic Opponent Template (example)
Added to any creature deemed by the DM to be a pivotal opponent for the plot.
If the create has DR it receives DR x/- where x equals half the orignal DR rounded down to the nearest multiple of 5.
Creatures receives special reduced effects versus certain effects (not immunity)
Petrification: instead of being turned to stone the creature fights through the effect and is considered slowed.
Stun: treat as dazed instead
Death: treat as exhausted
Turned: treat as shaken
Slowed by spell: treat as hindered
Held: treat as entangled
Blinded: treat as dazzled
Feebleminded: treat as a 2d6 Int penalty
Polymorphed: instead of being transformed the creature fights through the morphing and is considered slowed.
Critical: the creature does not suffer criticals in the standard way. Damage is not multiplied or sneak attack damage added, however the creature still receives an extra +1 damage per extra dice involved (+6d6 sneak does +6, greatsword crit does +2, greataxe crit does +2, longsword crit does +1, etc)
If the creature suffers the same effect in a subsequent round while still suffering the reduced effect the subsequent effect is not reduced, but occurs as normal.
_______________________________________
Instead of the piling on of immunities to create the higher CR creatures like in MM2, the ELH, and probably the FF, creatures could have middle of the road effect reductions which wouldn't totally negate the spells usefulness.
I'm sure I missed a few save or die spells but that's the general idea. More reduced effects for spells and less complete immunity. Plus there's always more room for creatures like the golems where spells have different effects.
I have no problem with general mooks, fillers, underlings and wandering monsters getting held, petrified, disintegrated, power word killed, polymorphed into fish, phantasmal killed, slay living'd, destruction'd, imploded, etc. In encounters where the opponents are not the climax of the adventure those are all fine. When it happens in the surprise action to your main villain I think it's less fun for everyone.
I'd like to see a Dramatic Opponent Template where the players know that these save-or-die spells will have less than dramatic results. There are a whole range of new impairment types in 3e that could be more widely used. Exhausted, fatigued, slowed, hindered, shaken, negative enhancement modifiers (not ability damage - they don't stack), entangled, dazed, dazzled, and probably a few I forgot.
__________________________________________
Dramatic Opponent Template (example)
Added to any creature deemed by the DM to be a pivotal opponent for the plot.
If the create has DR it receives DR x/- where x equals half the orignal DR rounded down to the nearest multiple of 5.
Creatures receives special reduced effects versus certain effects (not immunity)
Petrification: instead of being turned to stone the creature fights through the effect and is considered slowed.
Stun: treat as dazed instead
Death: treat as exhausted
Turned: treat as shaken
Slowed by spell: treat as hindered
Held: treat as entangled
Blinded: treat as dazzled
Feebleminded: treat as a 2d6 Int penalty
Polymorphed: instead of being transformed the creature fights through the morphing and is considered slowed.
Critical: the creature does not suffer criticals in the standard way. Damage is not multiplied or sneak attack damage added, however the creature still receives an extra +1 damage per extra dice involved (+6d6 sneak does +6, greatsword crit does +2, greataxe crit does +2, longsword crit does +1, etc)
If the creature suffers the same effect in a subsequent round while still suffering the reduced effect the subsequent effect is not reduced, but occurs as normal.
_______________________________________
Instead of the piling on of immunities to create the higher CR creatures like in MM2, the ELH, and probably the FF, creatures could have middle of the road effect reductions which wouldn't totally negate the spells usefulness.
I'm sure I missed a few save or die spells but that's the general idea. More reduced effects for spells and less complete immunity. Plus there's always more room for creatures like the golems where spells have different effects.
reapersaurus
Explorer
I agree.Zappo said:
Last year we talked about this, and many people like Xarlen see no problem with spells dominating in combat - in fact, he seems to be saying that it is too EASY for fighter-types to not be affected by magic mid-battle.
Well there are many other people who DON'T like the current Magic Situation, and removing spells is one of the simplest ways to do so.
On my website, I've listed the following
What are all the example you can think of for Save-or-Die spells?
Similar Threads
