Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 359914" data-attributes="member: 2486">Fair enough.&nbsp;Perhaps you misunderstand me.&nbsp; My point on this issue is that I have commented that save-or-die needn't be deadly due to the necessary defenses.&nbsp; You said that if save-or-die went, then the defenses could go as well.&nbsp; My counter-point was that by this logic, you might as well remove both Fire spells and Protection From Fire.&nbsp; In the end, the effect (i.e. narrowing the game) is the same.&nbsp;Short of instant death spells, and 'pseudo-instant-death' spells (Holds, Sleeps, Dominations, Flesh-to-Stones etc.) there is no way that a wizard can hold up to a fighter in a straight bash-fest.&nbsp; If we take 12th level to be the 'base level', the boom-wizard's best bet is a Fireball, doing 15d6 damage (around 50 on average).&nbsp; An archer with Rapid Shot can easily dish a similar amount out, and, although not necessarily to as large an area, is happily more than compensated by much higher durability.&nbsp; &nbsp;The counterargument, then, is this: it changes the whole character of the game.&nbsp; It places much less emphasis on saves and the like (which are primarily, at high level, to resist these effects), hence cheapening the monk and paladin.&nbsp; It cheapens the primary spellcasting classes.&nbsp; It totally redistributes the power between the school specialisations.&nbsp; It has a small cheapening effect on classes with good Fort saves (which, at high level, are geared up to making the save-or-dies).&nbsp; It strongly thrusts the spotlight back onto the rogue (who always suck when hit by save-or-dies), with the fighter, barbarian and ranger all coming out strongly.&nbsp; &nbsp;Which a) takes a long time and b) makes it no difference to save-or-die anyway!&nbsp;I have little doubt you are well-read enough to be able to quote Keynes.&nbsp; My point is that if, by the end of the combat, the character is dead irrespective of the mechanism, what is the ultimately difference?&nbsp; The course of one combat is hardly 'the long run' (at least how Keynes intended it.)&nbsp;Perhaps this was unreasonable, but I expected something more substantial than just pulling the plug.Zog:&nbsp;Read tsunami.&nbsp;This can also happen with hit-point damage.&nbsp; Focus all the tanks on the wizard (as any good tactical opponent should do) and they can easily hit the turf in one round.&nbsp;Ironically does the opposite of save-or-die banning in game mechanical terms.&nbsp; Banning save-or-dies greatly cheapens spellcasters; this fix boosts them severely by having them not only have the offensive power, but also the means to rectify it.&nbsp; And of course, ultimatley, it's not much different: you may as well keep save-or-dies as written.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Al, post: 359914, member: 2486"] Fair enough. Perhaps you misunderstand me. My point on this issue is that I have commented that save-or-die needn't be deadly due to the necessary defenses. You said that if save-or-die went, then the defenses could go as well. My counter-point was that by this logic, you might as well remove both Fire spells and Protection From Fire. In the end, the effect (i.e. narrowing the game) is the same. Short of instant death spells, and 'pseudo-instant-death' spells (Holds, Sleeps, Dominations, Flesh-to-Stones etc.) there is no way that a wizard can hold up to a fighter in a straight bash-fest. If we take 12th level to be the 'base level', the boom-wizard's best bet is a Fireball, doing 15d6 damage (around 50 on average). An archer with Rapid Shot can easily dish a similar amount out, and, although not necessarily to as large an area, is happily more than compensated by much higher durability. The counterargument, then, is this: it changes the whole character of the game. It places much less emphasis on saves and the like (which are primarily, at high level, to resist these effects), hence cheapening the monk and paladin. It cheapens the primary spellcasting classes. It totally redistributes the power between the school specialisations. It has a small cheapening effect on classes with good Fort saves (which, at high level, are geared up to making the save-or-dies). It strongly thrusts the spotlight back onto the rogue (who always suck when hit by save-or-dies), with the fighter, barbarian and ranger all coming out strongly. Which a) takes a long time and b) makes it no difference to save-or-die anyway! I have little doubt you are well-read enough to be able to quote Keynes. My point is that if, by the end of the combat, the character is dead irrespective of the mechanism, what is the ultimately difference? The course of one combat is hardly 'the long run' (at least how Keynes intended it.) Perhaps this was unreasonable, but I expected something more substantial than just pulling the plug. Zog: Read tsunami. This can also happen with hit-point damage. Focus all the tanks on the wizard (as any good tactical opponent should do) and they can easily hit the turf in one round. Ironically does the opposite of save-or-die banning in game mechanical terms. Banning save-or-dies greatly cheapens spellcasters; this fix boosts them severely by having them not only have the offensive power, but also the means to rectify it. And of course, ultimatley, it's not much different: you may as well keep save-or-dies as written. [/QUOTE]

Verification