One thing that has me concerned is that how a lot people present "save vs die" effects as progressive or dependant on bloodied status/hp in addition to having no effect on failed save. Following thingies are gathered from Wizards forums and are mostly from player's perspective, that is, player's using the effect or being target of the effect from NPC casters with class levels.
I've seen various suggestions to "fix" save or die effects i.e.:
Damage effects have only one disadvantage: they allow a save OR they allow an attack roll. Some may say that damage roll is a disadvantage, but in later (3E) game this is hardly a problem with certain feats. After all, save vs die effects don't work that well either (from player perspective) without certain empowering (heighten spell, spell focus for spells).
"Save vs die" effects have two: they allow a save AND there is no effect at all if the save succeeds. Some even allow multiple saves and/or are capped by HD/HP. However, it's generally viewed that when a death effect works, it works too well... especially if it targets a player. Basically the caster of save vs die effect either provides nothing within that round, or instantly slays the target/opens the target for coup de grace.
Now if people start suggesting that they are hp/level dependant, this just leads to "sleep", "deep slumber", "endless slumber" progression with spells/effects, where one effect is replaced by more powerful version of same. If no such progression exists, then these effects/spells are mostly useless. I mean, how many people cast sleep at level 10?
Another suggestion was that the effect works only if target is bloodied - that is, at half health. This made me again wonder: how many rounds are we supposed to fight one enemy? I can see some use for save vs die effects if battle against one enemy lasts for, say, six rounds. Assuming it takes three rounds to drop target to bloodied, then I'm potentially saving two rounds if I use the save vs die effect on 4th round.
Progressive effect has a few problems of its own: First let's assume it's NOT save or nothing and does NOT allow multiple saves (because otherwise it's just very weak compared to damage). Now I still have one problem: is the cumulative effect good enough to compare to damage? If I can drop an enemy with damage in four rounds and I can drop the enemy with save vs die effect in four rounds, then the save vs die effect must seriously hinder its target between rounds 1-3.
Furthermore, the progressive effect must NOT have too much bookkeeping: i.e. slowed rounds 1-3 is good but 1st round -10 ft movement, 2nd round -20 ft movement and -1 to attack and ac, 3rd round slowed, 4th round stone is not.
Basically think about this: crushing despair or fireball? Okay, maybe bad example since they are both AoEs but think single target versions of both. Would you pick a spell that dishes out 10d6 damage/reflex half at level 10 (more with empower) or a spell that gives -2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, ability checks, skill checks, and weapon damage rolls/will negates?
Basically the progressive effect of flesh to stone might work if it is: rounds 1-3 slowed, 4th stone with NO save/partial save. If it works 1-3 slowed, 4th stone, save for nothing, then it does not work. Not when I could have cast four damage spells within that time (plus the damage from other party members). After all, in either case the spell is basically glorified single target slow with the enemy most likely dead long before the stoning effect hits it.
Notes: I used 3E numbers and saves. We do know fireballs no longer will dish out 1d6/lvl in 4e but we also know they can crit. Furthermore, since it has been hinted that fights are now 1 vs 1 instead of 5 vs 1, I think it's pretty safe to assume that most enemies won't be around for six rounds (which either works for or against progressive effects). Finally, we also know that there will be per encounter and at will powers. This most likely includes both damage and status effects OR damage with status effects.
I've seen various suggestions to "fix" save or die effects i.e.:
- Progressive: target makes one save/multiple saves and the effect builds up
- Hp/Level dependant: no effect unless target is bloodied/below certain level
- Combination of above: progressive with save or no effect, must be bloodied/under certain level
Damage effects have only one disadvantage: they allow a save OR they allow an attack roll. Some may say that damage roll is a disadvantage, but in later (3E) game this is hardly a problem with certain feats. After all, save vs die effects don't work that well either (from player perspective) without certain empowering (heighten spell, spell focus for spells).
"Save vs die" effects have two: they allow a save AND there is no effect at all if the save succeeds. Some even allow multiple saves and/or are capped by HD/HP. However, it's generally viewed that when a death effect works, it works too well... especially if it targets a player. Basically the caster of save vs die effect either provides nothing within that round, or instantly slays the target/opens the target for coup de grace.
Now if people start suggesting that they are hp/level dependant, this just leads to "sleep", "deep slumber", "endless slumber" progression with spells/effects, where one effect is replaced by more powerful version of same. If no such progression exists, then these effects/spells are mostly useless. I mean, how many people cast sleep at level 10?
Another suggestion was that the effect works only if target is bloodied - that is, at half health. This made me again wonder: how many rounds are we supposed to fight one enemy? I can see some use for save vs die effects if battle against one enemy lasts for, say, six rounds. Assuming it takes three rounds to drop target to bloodied, then I'm potentially saving two rounds if I use the save vs die effect on 4th round.
Progressive effect has a few problems of its own: First let's assume it's NOT save or nothing and does NOT allow multiple saves (because otherwise it's just very weak compared to damage). Now I still have one problem: is the cumulative effect good enough to compare to damage? If I can drop an enemy with damage in four rounds and I can drop the enemy with save vs die effect in four rounds, then the save vs die effect must seriously hinder its target between rounds 1-3.
Furthermore, the progressive effect must NOT have too much bookkeeping: i.e. slowed rounds 1-3 is good but 1st round -10 ft movement, 2nd round -20 ft movement and -1 to attack and ac, 3rd round slowed, 4th round stone is not.
Basically think about this: crushing despair or fireball? Okay, maybe bad example since they are both AoEs but think single target versions of both. Would you pick a spell that dishes out 10d6 damage/reflex half at level 10 (more with empower) or a spell that gives -2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, ability checks, skill checks, and weapon damage rolls/will negates?
Basically the progressive effect of flesh to stone might work if it is: rounds 1-3 slowed, 4th stone with NO save/partial save. If it works 1-3 slowed, 4th stone, save for nothing, then it does not work. Not when I could have cast four damage spells within that time (plus the damage from other party members). After all, in either case the spell is basically glorified single target slow with the enemy most likely dead long before the stoning effect hits it.
Notes: I used 3E numbers and saves. We do know fireballs no longer will dish out 1d6/lvl in 4e but we also know they can crit. Furthermore, since it has been hinted that fights are now 1 vs 1 instead of 5 vs 1, I think it's pretty safe to assume that most enemies won't be around for six rounds (which either works for or against progressive effects). Finally, we also know that there will be per encounter and at will powers. This most likely includes both damage and status effects OR damage with status effects.
Last edited:
