Should magic be unfair?

[Saeviomagy]

You DON'T get a save against telelekinesis to have your sword taken away. The mage makes an attack roll (d20+caster level+int bonus) and beats your touch AC. Then he has your sword.

If you've got it out and wielded, THEN you get an opposed check.

 

[Particle_Man]

2nd ed AD&D psionics had a "Caster check" where, for instance, if you rolled a natural 1 when using the Disintigrate power, you disintegrated yourself! I'd say you might get balance if you replace the saves with a similar "Caster check" and make it not possible to improve the odds of that caster check by any means (thus making your spells as likely to fail no matter what level you are, but at higher levels you can cast better spells). That is just if you wanted to go that way, and is off the top of my head.

Now, mages with no caster checks and with victims without saves...wow...I don't know how any game would survive that unless you made it wizards vs. wizards, and everyone else were simply peons and slaves.

 

[Steel_Wind]

In a Swords & Sorcery narrative - sure. This makes the no save rule initially seductively attractive - but it takes from one genre and puts it into another heedless of the consequences.

There are things more important than narrative drama.

Do the no save the "attack spell succeeds" in a FRPG as a matter of routine? No and *hell* no.

Is it because its unrealistic? - No
Is it because it sets the wrong mood? - No
Is it because it fundmentally alters the balance in the game world? (gettin' closer and yes it does - but "no" that's not really the main reason)

It's because, ultimately, its *no fun*.

Seeing as this is a game, which is supposed to be "fun" to play, it does not get much more basic than that.

While you can think up all kinds of situations why the no savein that specific circumstance is acceptable and advances the story - as a rule of general applicaiton - its no fun to play that way.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I buy into the theory that magic is very particular with (many hidden) limitations.

Uber spellcasters are not omnipotent although some will go to extreme lengths to appear so.

If I was going to make magic unfair I would allow the fighter to knock out cold the wizard with one punch; have equipment stolen in the night with no hope of a trace; finally gods would smite dead blasphemers on request from the holy man.

 

[Goblyns Hoard]

Even if you allow the mage hand spell to work on the carotid artery I'd require a DC 30+ heal check for the mage to even know that the carotid exists! Unless the player has specifically stated he does a lot of dissections that is. Given that you have magic how likely is it that surgery has become as highly developed a skill as it is in the modern world? Just because the player know about the carotid don't let him assume his player would.

And then he'd have to have some sort of attack role to hit it in my opinion... afterall its small and the player can't even see it under his foes skin/armour. He may end up just pinching the target's neck

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You can`t do this in D&D - a no save / instant death ability as a spell is utterly unbalanced. In D&D, you basically just say what you want to cast and then do it - there are no checks or similar aspects involved (unless specific circumstances require it). And the abilities of your target are irrevelant, and this becomes extremely unbalanced - since the level in D&D does also represent your protection from danger and death (measured in HP and saves)
Rember the 3.0 Harm spell? Touch, no save, you are at 1d4 hp. That was definitely broken...

But if there is a cost to it and a risk of failure, you might be able to balance it.

In Shadowrun, this balance was (or was meant to be) achieved by the drain of spells, the need to make a succesful sorcery check - and the target still got a "saving throw" or resistance check - but in case of combat spells, this usually didn`t mean a lot. A Manabolt cast at deadly niveau would kill most targets, especially those that had no trouble with being attacked by weapons (like a Troll in military spec armor).
But in Shadowrun, people don`t have HP increasing with level.

There always has to be some kind of protection against such dangerous abilities, and the target itself needs the ability to at least affect the potential to cause it. In case of a Telekinesis spell - to manifest the neccessary magic to rip a heart out, you need to manipulate the "mana" (or whatever you want to call it) at the targets position - but the target has some limited control about it - allowing it to potentially resist the magic.

 

[Numion]

You DON'T get a save against telelekinesis to have your sword taken away. The mage makes an attack roll (d20+caster level+int bonus) and beats your touch AC. Then he has your sword.

If you've got it out and wielded, THEN you get an opposed check.

I thought that everything 'on' the target or worn by the target benefits from his / her saves (a sword in scabbard is worn, IMO). Only unattended objects don't get saves. My memory on this one is hazy though, because I've always played like that and never bothered to check it

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Ars Magica (see my sig!) is like that. Normal people have no defense against spells, although some might miss. Mages learn how to protect themselves during their training. They can pass a certain amount of this on to others temporarily. True believers (in the religious sense) also get a high level of protection.

The closest D20 comparison would be if only spellcasters got a saving throw. The balancing factor is that everyone has a mage. Also magic that kills outright tends to be extremely difficult to cast. Groups going out adventuring are advised to bring one or more wizards along.

I think this would suck greatly if introduced to a regular DnD game.

Don't much care for save or die stuff as it is, no save and die does not sound like much fun.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Is magic in D&D as it should be? No, there are saves and saveguards. But: Are swords as they should be? No, a critical hit won't kill your enemy. Is backstabbing as it should be? No, you can't creep up on someone and slit his throat, killing him instantly.

So go ahead, humor him. Make magic death-without save. And then set an assassin on him who slits his throat.

 

[KenM]

I have a friend who thinks that saving throws are stupid, particularly Will saves for non-mind control spells. He thinks that, if a mage knows Telekinesis, he ought to be able to rip your heart out of your chest, or at least yank your sword out of its sheath, without you getting a save.

Now, from a game standpoint, that's silly. It would be ridiculously unbalancing. Sure, it doesn't take but a few pounds of force to close off someone's carotid artery, but no sane DM would allow Mage Hand to kill someone by starving their brain.

But from a narrative standpoint, it kinda makes sense. Some abilities are really strong, and maybe those sorts of powers should be higher level, and then not allow a save.

If the DM is not allowing saves for the PC's, then it must work both ways, no saves for the monsters. Also, in DnD and most other RPG's, the players are playing heros, larger then life. Alot better then most other people in the world, they should have a chance to resisit spells.