Save or Die!

[Tsyr]

and the same could be said for the DM then i suppose.

if you are willing to kill the bad guys with a random roll. then the PCs should face the same danger.

I don't see my job as a DM as being the "opposition" for the players, and I really loath the whole "war" that many people think needs to be faught between the sides of the screen. I see my job as providing the story, guiding the story, and controling the world as suits the story. If it suits the story that a player dies, or if the player was doing something really stupid and warrents a "dice where they may" approach, they can die. If it serves no purpose story-wise for the player to die, if the player was doing his damnedest to avoid death, etc, he is *not* going to die from a save-or-die spell, not at my table. It's just not fun for us.

i've played in games where the DM was afraid to kill a PC. they aren't any fun either.

They weren't fun *to you*. Don't keep making the mistake that what is fun *to you* is exactly the same as everyone else. It's not.

Also, I'd like some people to keep in mind... not everyone thinks that resurection should be availbile at the corner Resurections 'R' Us. Nobody around here (And by around here, I mean the players I DM for, and the people in the groups I play in) has "Welp, XXXX died again, lets go get him rezzed then go back" as an ingrained attitude. It really ruins the whole feal of the game. It makes it feel like playing Everquest at a table.

 

[Victim]

Command, Sleep, or Color are first level and pretty much result in death on a failed save.

However, like Hold Person, they aren't DIRECT save or die effects. Someone still has to launch the coup de grace. Party members can shake someone awake, guard the person to prevent a coup de grace, cast a dispel quickly, etc. They're more like, "Save or do nothing while under extreme risk of death." You can still be rescued even with a failed save.

 

[diaglo]

I don't see my job as a DM as being the "opposition" for the players, and I really loath the whole "war" that many people think needs to be faught between the sides of the screen. I see my job as providing the story, guiding the story, and controling the world as suits the story. If it suits the story that a player dies, or if the player was doing something really stupid and warrents a "dice where they may" approach, they can die. If it serves no purpose story-wise for the player to die, if the player was doing his damnedest to avoid death, etc, he is *not* going to die from a save-or-die spell, not at my table. It's just not fun for us.

nor should you take the opposition role. no where did i say or imply that. i said. that the DM's fun in creating something could be viewed the same as the players fun in creating their PC. if you give the PCs the chance to kill something without them facing the same risk, it can be viewed as a shallow victory.

They weren't fun *to you*. Don't keep making the mistake that what is fun *to you* is exactly the same as everyone else. It's not.

take some of your own advice. i seem to recall saying that some of us enjoy this. i didn't say all or i didn't include those that chose otherwise. i was trying to give another point of view. please allow me to my own opinion.

Also, I'd like some people to keep in mind... not everyone thinks that resurection should be availbile at the corner Resurections 'R' Us. Nobody around here (And by around here, I mean the players I DM for, and the people in the groups I play in) has "Welp, XXXX died again, lets go get him rezzed then go back" as an ingrained attitude. It really ruins the whole feal of the game. It makes it feel like playing Everquest at a table.

i wholeheartedly agree with this.

 

[Zappo]

Bah. Bah. And bah again.

I've made a thread on the same topic, with even the very same subject line, a few months ago, and it didn't get nearly the same attention.

Anyway, save or die spells are the one and only sacred cow of D&D that I would gladly see removed. They run against the heroic style of the game. Why use a hit points system designed to make anticlimactic insta-deaths impossible - and then put in a lot of insta-death magic?

From the POV of game balance, they are offset by the availability of Raise Dead and Resurrection spells, ok. But still, they just don't have the right style.

Consider a huge final battle: the party wizard casts Polymorph, and one of two things happen. Either the battle is over at round one, or nothing happens and the wizard made a fool of himself. Neither of the two alternatives are very enjoyable I think.

In that other thread, a solution that came up was the use of ability damage for save-or-die spells, with the full effect of the spell going into effect when the ability score reaches zero. For example, a disintegration spell would deal 3d6 CON damage, save for half, if it reaches zero the character is disintegrated.

Another idea was that of having the spells reduce abilities over some rounds. For example, a hold person would inflict a 1d6 dexterity penalty; if the character fails the save, he keeps taking an additional 1d6 dexterity penalty each round. When the spell is over, all penalties vanish. This way the spells are overall about as powerful (because having the first die be applied regardless of save makes them more reliable), but they have less extreme effects because the character has a chance to flee, or dispel, or just keep fighting until the magic completely gets him. It makes for nice dramatic scenes too, as the fighter is slowly petrified...

Yet another alternative was the one suggested in an article by... was it Monte Cook? Can't quite remember. Anyway, it suggested that spells such as disintegration, finger of death and the like, instead of killing on a failed save merely dealt a humongous amount of damage. If the character reached 0 hit points from the attack, it would be slain/disintegrated/whatever. This was to be applied to epic levels, though, so it wouldn't work as well in normal play.

 

[Tsyr]

take some of your own advice. i seem to recall saying that some of us enjoy this. i didn't say all or i didn't include those that chose otherwise. i was trying to give another point of view. please allow me to my own opinion.

if you don't have a risk of your character dieing from some random act. then you are missing some of the fun of the game that others of us enjoy.

My bone here is that you think we are missing anything. I'm not. I find no fun in the situation, though you do. That's fine, for you, but please don't assume or insinuate that I'm missing anything.

Some people find enjoyment in getting drunk. I don't feel I'm "missing" anything in not getting drunk; I've been drunk before, and I hate it.

Same thing.

 

[diaglo]

My bone here is that you think we are missing anything. I'm not. I find no fun in the situation, though you do. That's fine, for you, but please don't assume or insinuate that I'm missing anything.

Some people find enjoyment in getting drunk. I don't feel I'm "missing" anything in not getting drunk; I've been drunk before, and I hate it.

Same thing.

okay. now i see. sorry i missed that.

i'm sorry you took my words to mean you.

 

[jasper]

yea! With the thief backstabbing him with arrows, and the blade barrier the bbeg is dead! That makes heroes 100 bbeg 0!

I like the save or die spells. I also include resurrections for the unlucky and stupid.

One question if you don't like the save or die spells why are you(or your group) casting them.?


After all you keep chopping on the dragon it will die sooner or later.

 

[Olive]

as a player i loved disintergrate... as a DM i have nightmares, especialy in a part with two arcane casters (well, three if you count the bard)...

but at the same time, when it first comes up, we'll just have to see. maybe 3.5 will address this, but i suspect it won't.

 

[Forrester]

Bah. Bah. And bah again.

I've made a thread on the same topic, with even the very same subject line, a few months ago, and it didn't get nearly the same attention.

In that other thread, a solution that came up was the use of ability damage for save-or-die spells, with the full effect of the spell going into effect when the ability score reaches zero. For example, a disintegration spell would deal 3d6 CON damage, save for half, if it reaches zero the character is disintegrated.

Another idea was that of having the spells reduce abilities over some rounds. For example, a hold person would inflict a 1d6 dexterity penalty; if the character fails the save, he keeps taking an additional 1d6 dexterity penalty each round. When the spell is over, all penalties vanish.

I remember that thread .

The problem with the ability-score solution is that it's a bookkeeping nightmare, especially for DMs. DMs already have to keep track of each baddie's HP and, to some extent, AC. Having to keep track of their Con, Str, and Dex on a constant basis would be a huge pain in the ass.

Maybe with the fancy-schmancy spreadsheets or whatever programs that some DMs use to track battle it would work. (I haven't figured out how they save time, myself, but what do I know?) But paper-and-pencil DMs would find it a nightmare.

That's not to say that in principal it's not a good idea. Frankly, I love it. Just don't see it working smoothly in practice.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Since ressurection is so pathetically easy and cheap I don't have a problem with it.