Save or Die!

I kind of miss save or die effects -- if anything, 3E has drastically reduced the number of them.

No more save or die poisons, for example, very few save or die traps. You get saves to avoid losing levels, and saves to avoid permanent ability damage.

The wizard who can disintigrate with a word; the thief with the instant death poison -- these have long been staples of modern fantasy.

Sometimes, you just have to play with the safety off.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Flexor the Mighty! said:
Since ressurection is so pathetically easy and cheap I don't have a problem with it.

As has been pointed out, game-balance-wise, save or die isn't a huge problem. It is a problem for those of us who like raise dead/resurrection to be rarer and more difficult. You know, to avoid that EverQuest feeling.

And frankly, I think it's a problem from the storytelling point of view. Random acts of death are lame unless you're playing Paranoia.
 

As both DM and player, I'm fine with "save or die" spells. I think they're fine where game balance is concerned, and a little bit of randomness is a good thing, IMO. It's fun for the players to have their PC pull off a disintegrate, and they know the same can happen to them.

In short, it works for me and my group. YMMV. End of story.
 
Last edited:

There is an article in the "Epic Insights" section of the WOTC website that discusses this. If your group doesn't like Save or Die effects, you might implement it for pre-Epic games as well.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/ei/ei20030105a

Tweaking Your Epic-Level Game
By Andy Collins




While the Epic Level Handbook contains plenty of guidelines and advice for running an epic-level game, certain issues may arise that force the DM into the unwanted role of discouraging or limiting certain effects, both on his side and the players' side. While that can be a reasonable solution for groups willing to look past the letter of the rules in favor of the spirit of an enjoyable game, it's not always enough simply to say, "Hey, stop casting harm on every dragon you meet!"

That's where the variants presented in this column come in handy. Each one tackles a different potentially problematic issue in epic-level spellcasting. In most cases, these issues crop up simply because of the "no limits" approach to epic-level play. There's really nothing wrong with any of the spells or feats listed below in a non-epic game, though at higher levels you may see hints as to larger problems looming.

If you've been frustrated by any of these situations, discuss the variant rule presented with the rest of the gaming group and consider trying it out for a session or two to see if it lets you get back to a more enjoyable experience.

Epic Variant: No "Save or Die" Spells

By the time characters reach epic levels, spells that kill the target on a failed save ("save or die" spells) can swing an encounter dramatically on the basis of a single roll. These spells have an effect that dramatically outweighs that of other spells of similar level, because death effects generally don't care about your level or hit points. Effectively, these spells get more powerful as their targets become more powerful. (Some spells, such as circle of death or power word, kill affect creatures up to a maximum HD or hit point value only, which means that they have a built-in upper limit of destructive power.)

If you want to downplay the swing factor of save or die spells, consider altering the spells listed below as described. In each case, the "death" effect is replaced by dice of damage, allowing extraordinarily powerful targets to withstand such spells even on a failed save. This means that you're better off wearing down a tough foe for a few rounds before hitting it with a save or die spell.

Destruction: Instead of simply destroying the target on a failed save, this spell deals 20d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage per caster level, with no upper limit to its damage. If this damage reduces the target to 0 or fewer hit points, the target is destroyed utterly, as described in the spell.

Disintegrate: On a failed save, this spell deals 20d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage per caster level, with no upper limit to its damage. If this damage reduces the target to 0 or fewer hit points, the target is disintegrated, as described in the spell.

Finger of Death: On a failed save, this spell deals 20d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage per caster level, with no upper limit to its damage. If this damage reduces the target to 0 or fewer hit points, the target is slain.

Implosion: Each target that fails its save against this spell suffers 20d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage per caster level, with no upper limit to its damage. If this damage reduces the target to 0 or fewer hit points, the target is killed, as described in the spell.

Prismatic Sphere, and so on: The green (poison) layer (or ray) deals 20d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage per caster level on a failed save, with no upper limit to its damage. If this damage reduces the target to 0 or fewer hit points, the target is killed, as described in the spell.

Slay Living: See finger of death.

Wail of the Banshee: See implosion.

Epic Variant: Limited Harm and Heal Effects

Few spells in the game see as much heated discussion as these two. Much like the save or die effects listed above, these spells continue to get more and more powerful as their targets gain levels (and hit points).

If your group isn't satisfied with the ever-escalating power of these spells, consider changing them to deal (or cure) 10 hit points per caster level, to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level. (In the case of harm, the spell can't reduce the target below 1 hit point.) This allows the spells to retain their role as extraordinarily potent damage-dealing (or damage-curing) effects, while limiting them from wiping out or restoring several hundred hit points in a single touch.

Along the same lines, the heal mount spell would cure 10 hit points per caster level, to a maximum of 100 hit points at 10th level (since it's a lower-level spell than heal). Mass heal would have a maximum of 250 hit points cured at 25th level.

Maximum Spell Effects

Some spells in the Player's Handbook have effects based on caster level but don't list a "cap" to these effects. Consider adding the following maximum spell effect caps to your game to keep these spells in line with their appropriate power level.

Augury: The base chance for receiving a meaningful reply is 70% +1% per caster level, to a maximum of 90% at 20th level or higher.

Bigby's Clenched Fist/Bigby's Grasping Hand: The attack bonus of either spell is equal to your level up to 20th, then +1 per 2 levels thereafter. (Effectively, the attack bonus is equal to the base attack bonus of a fighter of your caster level.)

Circle of Doom: This spell is listed as dealing a maximum of 1d8+20 points of damage. This limit should probably be 1d8+25, since it's a level higher than inflict critical wounds (which also has a maximum of +20).

Creeping Doom: It seems hard to believe that a spell that covers a 20-foot-diameter spread could inflict its full damage on a single target within it in any given round. After all, not all of vermin are in each square, so it's not possible for the spell to inflict all 1,000 points of damage to, say, a single human unlucky enough to be the lone creature within its area. This spell fills 12 squares, so each square would have no more than (1,000 divided by 12) roughly 80 stinging bugs. For simplicity's sake, you could round this to an even 100, meaning that creeping doom would inflict a maximum of 100 points of damage in each 5-foot square per round. Thus, a human could suffer no more than 100 points of damage per round (since he takes up only a single square), while a cloud giant (who fills a 10-foot-by-10-foot area, or four full squares) could suffer 400 points of damage per round. (Remember that since each point of damage comes from a separate source, this damage doesn't force a Fortitude save to avoid death from massive damage.)

Fire Shield: The damage dealt to attackers should top out at 1d6+20 points of damage.

Harm: See "Limited Harm and Heal Effects," above.

Heal: See "Limited Harm and Heal Effects," above.

Heal Mount: See "Limited Harm and Heal Effects," above.

Healing Circle: Like circle of doom, this spell should probably top out at 1d8+25 points, rather than 1d8+20.

Mass Heal: See "Limited Harm and Heal Effects," above.

Protection from Elements: This spell doesn't list a maximum amount of damage absorbed. As a 3rd-level spell, it could top out as low as 10th level (120 points), but it wouldn't be terribly unbalanced to allow it to top out at 20th level (240 points).

Regenerate: This spell should probably cure a maximum of 1d8+35 points, rather than 1d8+20.

Spell Resistance: The maximum spell resistance granted by this spell should be 37 at 25th level.

Tenser's Transformation: The caster of the spell gains 1d6 temporary hit points per level and a +1 base attack bonus per two levels, up to a maximum of 20d6 temporary hit points and a +10 base attack bonus at 20th level. After all, beyond 20th level, the fighter and wizard both increase base attack bonus at the same rate, and this spell is designed to give the wizard a fighter's base attack bonus.

Wall of Ice: Just as for wall of fire, a creature passing through a wall of ice should suffer a maximum of 1d6+20 points of damage.

Epic Variant: Nonstacking Metamagic

A few metamagic feats -- Empower Spell, Enlarge Spell, and Extend Spell -- can be applied to a single spell multiple times, stacking its increased effect again and again. When casters are limited to slots up to 9th level, this doesn't pose too much of a problem -- you can empower a bull's strength only three times before you run into the top limit of your spellcasting powers.

But as epic-level characters gain spell slots of 10th, 12th, 15th, or higher levels, the stacking nature of these metamagic feats can grow out of control. To address this situation, consider limiting all metamagic feats to no more than one application per feat slot spent on the feat. A character who wanted to empower a fireball twice would thus have to take the Empower Spell feat twice.

This may seem overly harsh to players who have grown used to quadrupling the range of their spells with multiple stacking applications of Enlarge Spell, or dramatically increasing the damage output of their lightning bolts with Empower Spell. As a compromise, consider alternative limits, such as a maximum of two applications per feat slot spent. The DM and players should work together to find a happy medium where both sides are comfortable with the outcome.
 

I'm ok with save or die. My character usually has death ward, freedom of movement and immunity to spells up, so it isn't such a big deal. Of course someone could dispel me and then hit it, but then he's alreasy wasted precious actions on me ;)

If I'm the DM, I gladly throw a small victory dance if a PC goes down, so thats my take on the issue :D
 

Andy Collins wrote a nice section on this at the Wizards' webstie:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/ei/ei20030105a

Essentially, he recommends that save or die spells do 20d6+1d6/level damage. If you hit zero hp, you're dead.

Also, a lot of the solutions that people have posted here were also suggestion in the ELH such as Epic Luck (a variant where you can re-roll x number of rolls/day).

My own thought is that you should keep save or die spells but it is probably good to can Spell Power type abilities.

My own PC died several times by insta-kill effects: Energy drained to death, killed by a Bodak's death gaze, CDG after succumbing to drow sleep poison, etc.

I've learned from the experiences. Now I always have Deathward cast.
 

Fourecks said:
I have a new pet peeve. Which is odd because most of my pet peeves about D&D stemmed from 2nd ed. but this one has only recently surfaced. In fact, it surfaced about a half an hour ago after reading through the thread about players getting lucky and screwing up encounters.

Basically, it's the whole 'save or die' concept. It's something I've always disliked but now that 3.5 ed. is coming up and it's addressing a lot of the pet peeves I had about 3rd ed. and 3rd ed. addressed most of the pet peeves I had about 2nd ed., I think I'm now refocusing and finding new pet peeves!
*snip*

My first save or die death came about playing 1st Edition.
 

1. The fundamental problem with save or die spells is that, over time, randomness will always favor the bad guys.

Assume an average of one character per encounter having to make a save or die. On average, you have at least one dead party member every twenty encounters. For those who feel the players are somehow at fault for placing their characters in a vulnerable position, consider that there is no way to avoid all possible save or die situations. Therefore, with enough encounters, any character is guaranteed to die at some point - through no fault of the player.

While the same average holds true for the bad guys, there are always more opponents to throw at a party. Unless its a major villain, how many GM's really worry too much when the party takes out an opponent on a bad roll? And for the major villains, hero points, luck points, etc. are a simple remedy - if I, as DM, blow the roll twice for the villain, well...it was meant to be.

2. Consider also, when using save or die spells to their fullest, anyone rolling a lousy initiative may die before having a chance to act, so initiative becomes all-important in combat. The player does nothing wrong, but the character is still dead.

3. Much of the enjoyment I have as a player is from having options. Do I sneak into the enemy camp, or try to ambush them, or negotiate, or charm a guard, or...you get the idea. The current save or die system seems to undercut the idea that players should control the fate of their characters. Just as it's wrong for a GM to kill a character "just because", it's a flaw in the system if any character is guaranteed to die at some point, just because of the dice.
 


Zappo said:
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. :mad:
Lol, that's because I have Skill Focus: Messageboard Posting :D

Zappo said:
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.
Yeah, that's sorta what sparked this topic for me. I read Dr. Midnight's story hour excerpt in the thread 'DMs, Tell about the shortest encounter ever because of players luck and actions' and it brought up all the instances in my own games where something like that happened. Actually, most of that thread was instances where it all came down to the roll of one die.

Zappo said:
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...
I like this and in fact that's is the line I was thinking along for my own fix but I'm guessing I'll have to save that for a House Rule thread :)
 

Remove ads

Top