Spells which were not properly nerved...

[kinem]

That's just an argument for save or die monster/NPC powers to be used against PCs.

Its not an argument that it is good to give PCs save or die attack spells to use against BBEGs.

If NPCs can do something, PCs should be able to do the same thing. Players find that fair and like to turn the tables like that. It also adds to the simulationism of the game.

If you want another argument for it: Not all classes should work the same way, to make the game more interesting. Fighter-types hack away at hit points. Hence the need for classes that can use save-or-dies instead of hack-away attacks.

That is the Godwin's Law equivalent of RPG discussions. Instant FAIL.

Stating that Godwin's law BS is an 'instant fail' on your part, Wulf. You think it makes you look smart? It makes you look like an idiot in my book. (Not saying you are one - I'm sure you're not.)

D&D is a simulationist game, aka an RPG. If it weren't, it wouldn't be so much fun for people like me. Wulf, your BS way of thinking - that gamism trumps all - is what led to the dryness that is 4e.

Hence real world comparisons are important to the game. Sure, it adds magic, monsters, and superhuman feats and many mechanics are rather abstract and simplified. But in any discussion of game design for D&D, the baseline to start with is the real world situation, which can then be modified as desired if there are good reasons. For example, Monte Cook and the other 3e designers are proud to think that they simulated fairly well what sorts of actions can be taken by a real person during a 6-second interval.

 

[kinem]

Feat- sudden silence allows any one spell memorized by the wizard to be cast (at original level) on the spot silent. Wheather the wizard is being sneaky (in the case of my wizard in Wirtlestaff's wizard thread) or as an emergerncy departure( expiditious retreat was mentioned, but further up the line is dimension door and teleport) cast with the feat's effect: poof, one escaped wizard.

Yes. Most spellcasters (PC or NPC) should have some way to cast a silent spell, or a few of them.

One way to nerf silence (though I don't think it's really needed) might be to make silent spellcasting possible for anyone by making a concentration check.

 

[GlassJaw]

For example, Monte Cook and the other 3e designers are proud to think that they simulated fairly well what sorts of actions can be
taken by a real person during a 6-second interval.

Does it take you 6 seconds to drink a potion?

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

You think it makes you look smart? It makes you look like an idiot in my book.

I think you need to take a deep breath.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Hence real world comparisons are important to the game. Sure, it adds magic, monsters, and superhuman feats and many mechanics are rather abstract and simplified. But in any discussion of game design for D&D, the baseline to start with is the real world situation, which can then be modified as desired if there are good reasons.

In the real world, actually getting HIT by most of the weapons in the PHB would either take you out of the fight (at best for you) to instantly kill you by causing massive damage (at worst for you). Instead in D&D it takes off some HP.

In the real world, an assassin successfully sneaking up behind someone in shoving a stiletto in their throat kills them instantly and silently. Instead in D&D it takes off some HP.

In the real world, falling 30 feet onto cobblestone would either cause massive fractures (at best for you) or just outright kill you (at worst for you). Instead in D&D it takes off some HP.

I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point.

There are a LOT of "in the real world" things that D&D doesn't simulate correctly. Some things are handwaved because they aren't important (getting stomach bugs from drinking from a creek) or handwaved because of balance (and yes, balance even applies to older versions of D&D) by the implementation of the HP mechanic. Why would someone argue that its fair that weapons get "nerfed" by having to go through the HP mechanics and then at the same time complain about how unfair it is that magic has to go through the same mechanic?

I am all for having different feels for magic versus mundane. I think it would go a long way to making magic feel different, and exciting. That mechanic doesn't have to be save-or-die. There is nothing particularly "magical" about save-or-die, its just unfun. It would be unfun if the evil assassin trying to kill me made me save vs. FORT or die. It would be unfun if the evil barbarian hit me with a greatsword and I had to save vs. REF or die. It is equally unfun if the evil wizard commands me to slit my own throat and I have to save vs. WILL or die.

Ultimately, if you feel that you enjoy save-or-die, then good for you and your team. Everyone plays D&D differently. Pathfinder might be what you are looking for. If you don't like save-or-die then great, look into 4e or some other product that doesn't have the same mechanic. The original topic asked "Spells which were not properly nerfed" to which some replied "I think the save-or-die spells should have been nerfed". That's just some persons opinion.

Personally, I think save-or-die spells should be nerfed because I do not think its good game balance (or design if the word balance makes you crabby) to have equal level enemies taken out because of one die roll. That applies to magic, weapons, natural sources, etc... The reason is because save-or-die (to me) is not fun. I play D&D to have fun.

DS

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

well

Sabathius, what are you complaining about? There's a game out there designed just the way you seem to think D&D should be. It's called 4E.

FYI, Assassin strikes didn't just take off some HP in 1E. They rolled on a table to see if they killed you. And even in 3E, you have to make a FORT save or die. In other words, Save or Die.

We have two competing game systems now which largely serve different gaming philosophies. 4E largely caters to the gamist crowd that wants to be having fun every round. Pathfinder is more simulationist. We all have choices. What's wrong with that?

Ken

 

[pawsplay]

If a barbarian hits you hard enough, you will have to save or die.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If a barbarian hits you hard enough, you will have to save or die.

He'll have to hit you harder in Pathfinder, because they nerfed death by massive damage!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If a barbarian hits you hard enough, you will have to save or die.

Most of the time, you will probably just die, though, because you didn't have the hit points in the first place.

 

[ancientvaults]

I don't see anything wrong with a Save or Die situation since that is one of the consequences of not being a peasant or villager. Once you are insane enough to strap on weapons and armor and go out into the wilderness to explore dungeons and kill monsters then you forfeit the safe and comfortable life of a baker or blacksmith.

As far as the comparison to 4e as a fun game and Pathfinder being mere simulation, that is pretty laughable. Any game that you and your group likes is a fun game, whether it is Risk, OD&D, Pathfinder or 4E. My group tried 4E, yet it was not fun at all for any of us, so we went back to the basics. Pathfinder looks streamlined enough to be where we want to be for a more modern game. All of us found 4E to be less than fun, but, to each their own. No edition is better than any other.