What's the Problem with Save-or-Die?

[Holy Bovine]

The saving throw was designed to give an adventurer some chance to avoid at least the worst effects of terrible magical and mythic powers.

If these effects are removed from the game then what is there to separate the fantastic from the mundane? If myth and magic can accomplish nothing but dealing damage do we really need it at all?

If magic isn't going to have a distinctly different feel from the everyday then get rid of it.

Or come up with better things than a) hp damage or b) instant death for magic to do. Magic should be special - just killing a guy outright (while impressive) isn't exactly 'wow' in the flavor department. Turning a guy into a newt, surrounding him in a flaming coffin, slowly start crushing his throat - these are magical things that can hinder a PC without outright killing them. My motto has always been - 'Any idiot can kill a PC - I want to make them wish they could die!'

 

[Mouseferatu]

What if the sleep spell did the following:

"If the target is not currently involved in a life-or-death situation (eg. combat) they immediately fall asleep. Otherwise, they are first slowed by lethargy, and then may fall asleep if they allow the lethargy to overtake their force of will"


Seems a lot more sane, balanced, and mythic, than the old version.

I. Love. This.

I love this almost as much as I love puppies. This is brilliant.

I can see two ways to handle this sort of thing. One is exactly as you've posted.

Some groups, of course, would then get into arguments about what constitutes a life-threatening situation. (You know this to be true. ) So the other possible way of handling it is to have certain spells that can be cast one of two ways. They can either be cast as a standard action (or whatever D&DN's equivalent is), in which case, they have the multiple save thing going. Or they can be cast as "ritual magic," and require five minutes. (Or however long.) In this case, the caster builds up enough power that the spell functions at full effectiveness--but in most situations, it's simply not something you can do in combat. (And even if you choose to do so, it means you aren't helping the party in any other way for a few dozen rounds, so it more than balances out.)

I can see ways to make either work, and I can see advantages to both. But either way, giving some of these "save or lose" spells variable strengths in or out of combat is a fantastic idea.

 

[Lanefan]

Some groups, of course, would then get into arguments about what constitutes a life-threatening situation. (You know this to be true. )

Yes, there'd be arguing; true of pretty much anything that is left up to DM interpretation. But that's what the DM is for.

So the other possible way of handling it is to have certain spells that can be cast one of two ways. They can either be cast as a standard action (or whatever D&DN's equivalent is), in which case, they have the multiple save thing going. Or they can be cast as "ritual magic," and require five minutes. (Or however long.) In this case, the caster builds up enough power that the spell functions at full effectiveness--but in most situations, it's simply not something you can do in combat. (And even if you choose to do so, it means you aren't helping the party in any other way for a few dozen rounds, so it more than balances out.)

I can see ways to make either work, and I can see advantages to both. But either way, giving some of these "save or lose" spells variable strengths in or out of combat is a fantastic idea.

I'd go with Kingreaper's version, I think. The "5-minute ritual" version has the severe drawback of the target being long gone by the time you resolve, for anything except "friendly" spells (someone used Invisibility as an example upthread), which makes it kinda pointless.

An unintended - but potentially very interesting - side effect of this would be to put parties much more into stealth mode. Think about it - if something doesn't know you're there (and thus is not in a life-threatening situation) your first blast of spells are going to be much more effective against it...

Lan-"some iconic things should still be straight SoD however"-efan

 

[Mouseferatu]

An unintended - but potentially very interesting - side effect of this would be to put parties much more into stealth mode. Think about it - if something doesn't know you're there (and thus is not in a life-threatening situation) your first blast of spells are going to be much more effective against it...

See, that's actually why I wasn't certain the "in-combat/out-of-combat" distinction would work. I don't want a game where the best tactical option in almost all scenarios is to sneak. (Heavy armor characters are already disliked by too many.) And make no mistake, that would, indeed, be the practical result.

As I said, both ways have ups and downs. And there may be some other way to make it work. But the overall concept is a winner.

 

[Sunseeker]

An unintended - but potentially very interesting - side effect of this would be to put parties much more into stealth mode. Think about it - if something doesn't know you're there (and thus is not in a life-threatening situation) your first blast of spells are going to be much more effective against it...

As pointed out, unless stealth is going to be easier to pick up for normally non-stealthy classes, we're basically cutting out about 75% of the classes from this kind of action.

Not to mention most spells are V,S, so the first thing you do is stand up, wave your arms around like an idiot and yell: "AVADA KEDAVRA!"

 

[Kingreaper]

Some groups, of course, would then get into arguments about what constitutes a life-threatening situation. (You know this to be true. )

I think there needs to be a list of situations that automatically count (ie. any time someone is in combat and not surprised) and ones that automatically count as non-life-threatening (ie. a guard sitting at his post, bored, playing a card game) with the proviso "and the GM makes a ruling for any other situation". If the GM says someone is too on edge to be hit by the full effect, well, they're an NPC, their emotional state is something only he knows.

My personal preference, for sleep, would be that any situation where they know that falling asleep=death is definitely going to involve the combat effect. (This would mean that the elite guard, with their Overlord standing right behind them, can never be hit by the non-combat effect, because they're terrified already.)

So the other possible way of handling it is to have certain spells that can be cast one of two ways. They can either be cast as a standard action (or whatever D&DN's equivalent is), in which case, they have the multiple save thing going. Or they can be cast as "ritual magic," and require five minutes.

I think it depends on the spell which approach is superior. For self-buffs the ritual version is definitely best.
For sleep, I think the adrenaline version is best.

For SoD spells, I'd say the ritual would have to have a length measured in rounds for it to be worth it. It'd make for some very cool scenes with a 5 round ritual however, where the enemy is trying to get to the wizard and hit/grab/push them to disrupt the casting.

Hmmm, you could also have SoDs that have a huge range, if you have a piece of your opponents body (ie. hair, nail clippings, teeth) so that a longer version of the ritual can be done in secrecy from a mile away, but if you don't have such things the range is 30-50 feet, and you need line of sight.

 

[Mattachine]

And, let's not forget, the medusa has been an "aha gotcha" monster since pretty much day 1. You can go all the way back to Keep on the Borderlands, and there's a Medusa trap in one of the caves. There have also been variations on the "Medusa trap" in loads of other adventures as well.

In fact, while I can think of numerous examples of the Aha Gotcha Medusa, I'm totally drawing a blank on the Telegraphed Medusa.

The Gotcha Monster with SoD is a staple of old school gaming. I would say it is a Gygaxian style, using a monster as the trap or trick. It is great for competitive play, or play where player skill is the main test. For my current game, though, gotcha monsters would wreak havoc with story, character development, and so forth. It would be Wham Episode, for sure.

 

[Hussar]

See, that's actually why I wasn't certain the "in-combat/out-of-combat" distinction would work. I don't want a game where the best tactical option in almost all scenarios is to sneak. (Heavy armor characters are already disliked by too many.) And make no mistake, that would, indeed, be the practical result.

As I said, both ways have ups and downs. And there may be some other way to make it work. But the overall concept is a winner.

I mentioned this earlier, but, wouldn't the easiest distinction be initiative? If you are not in initiative, you use the out of combat version. If you are in initiative, you use the combat version.

So, on those times when the party actually does get the drop on something, they use the "out of initiative" version, but, as soon as that goes off, you're likely going to be into combat, so, you won't have groups stacking out of combat effects.

 

[Dausuul]

I mentioned this earlier, but, wouldn't the easiest distinction be initiative? If you are not in initiative, you use the out of combat version. If you are in initiative, you use the combat version.

Do you know how many arguments I've had over when the party goes into initiative?

 

[Hussar]

Do you know how many arguments I've had over when the party goes into initiative?

Really? This is one place I can't think I've ever had any real arguments about. Character X wants to attack Character Y - unless there's surprise involved, initiative gets rolled.

I can honestly say that this is one place I didn't realize was contentious.