This is very bad I think
We have already taken away some of the lethaity of the game with adding more healing now we are taking away Save or Dies
I think this is very bad and make me fell like this game is going "soft" on the characters
this really lowers the threat of death for characters
Together with the removal of level loss when braught back from the dead, this is rather big a change indeed.
On the other hand, doing a straight 10 damage per caster level is enough damage to put things to a final rest... But hardly not everything, not even most... of the same CR...
I agree totaly, IMO the necromancy has lost too many things.
So sad... :'(
I won't miss them in the slightest.
I´m very glad they did!
The Wizard and other characters where often way too powerful just because of save or die spells.
This is the way in the right direction Paizo!
Here is my question then why do classes have save or die effects but now the save or die spells are gone
So the assassin should lose his save or die so should all the new 20th level death effects
It's too strange : Necromancy can't kill on bad saves, but illusion, yes !
A powerful necromancer (sorcerer or wizard) can't kill on one dice, but bard could !
|
I don't really like the changes to these spells, but we need more consistency. Finger of Death does 10/caster level. But Slay living does 12d6+1/CL... ? Why the disparity? so the Level 20 Wizard or Sorcerer can do 200, but the Level 20 cleric does max 92?
I call bogus on this one Jason.
I also believe 15/Caster Level would put it at the appropriate lethality.
I'd prefer to keep the SoD spells intact.
Bards Deadly performance far out performs these spells, I know you only gain it at level 20, but still. It's a save or die, why mess with the save or die spells if you're going to make a save or die ability that affects more than one target.
Jason should consider changing it to two saves on two consecutive rounds. If the first save fails you take damage, if the second fails you die. This would stop save or dies from being abused, but still make them viable.
Well unless the difficulty class of the spell is really high.
On a side note the bard’s deadly performance, could have the same restriction.
The new bard is very cool.
Director of Game Design
|
I don't really like the changes to these spells, but we need more consistency. Finger of Death does 10/caster level. But Slay living does 12d6+1/CL... ? Why the disparity? so the Level 20 Wizard or Sorcerer can do 200, but the Level 20 cleric does max 92?
I call bogus on this one Jason.
I also believe 15/Caster Level would put it at the appropriate lethality.
I'd prefer to keep the SoD spells intact.
Bards Deadly performance far out performs these spells, I know you only gain it at level 20, but still. It's a save or die, why mess with the save or die spells if you're going to make a save or die ability that affects more than one target.
First off, Finger of Death is a 7th level spell and slay living is a 5th level spell, so that is where the damage discrepancy comes from.
Deadly Performance is going to get a revision in the Beta.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I don't have a problem with class-based save-or-dies. It makes them more significant when save-or-die spells aren't. It is however wonky that finger of death and slay living don't.
I like the save-or-damage, then save or die next round. It would allow for a friendly caster that is on his toes to stop you from dying with a timely dispel magic. I would reduce the initial damage though.
Count me in with save-or-damage and if you fail the first save, then save the second rounds or die. You get 2 chances to live and the opportunity to get saved via dispel magic.
|
|
I don't really like the changes to these spells, but we need more consistency. Finger of Death does 10/caster level. But Slay living does 12d6+1/CL... ? Why the disparity? so the Level 20 Wizard or Sorcerer can do 200, but the Level 20 cleric does max 92?
I call bogus on this one Jason.
I also believe 15/Caster Level would put it at the appropriate lethality.
I'd prefer to keep the SoD spells intact.
Bards Deadly performance far out performs these spells, I know you only gain it at level 20, but still. It's a save or die, why mess with the save or die spells if you're going to make a save or die ability that affects more than one target.
First off, Finger of Death is a 7th level spell and slay living is a 5th level spell, so that is where the damage discrepancy comes from.
Deadly Performance is going to get a revision in the Beta.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
In that case I understand a slight disparity, how about 10/CL for Slay Living and 15/CL for finger of death.
Basically my problem is having spells that no longer actually kill things they should.
Perhaps just adding a second save to bring it in line with Phantasmal killer, the level disparity would be provided by the DC of the spell.
For Both Slay Living and FoD, it could be Will/Fort or vice versa.
Finger of Death is ranged, whereas Slay Living is Touch (and requires an attack roll). That is why it is lower level. I'd recommend making the damage consistent.
Excellent point Skjaldbakka, I agree just make both the same damage, the level disparity covers the range difference.
|
Count me in with save-or-damage and if you fail the first save, then save the second rounds or die. You get 2 chances to live and the opportunity to get saved via dispel magic.I don't have a problem with class-based save-or-dies. It makes them more significant when save-or-die spells aren't. It is however wonky that finger of death and slay living don't.
I like the save-or-damage, then save or die next round. It would allow for a friendly caster that is on his toes to stop you from dying with a timely dispel magic. I would reduce the initial damage though.
If it's going to be changed - I like the two save combo as an alternative to just not killing something.
a Fort save to withstand the immediate death, and if failed damage taken as described, then the following round a Will save to shrug off the effects of the spell or die. So a Fort / Will save combo - opposite of PK.
Either way - I do like the 2 saves or die method.
Robert
Multiple saves is the new way to make Save or Lose effects less.. crappy.
Multiple saves before death for the Save or Die spells.
Save or Lose (Dominate, Fear, Hideous Laughter, etc) can follow the same path as Hold Person (save each round to break it), or a different save each round mechanic (such as save on a later round allows normal action for that round only).
This is how I can see making these spells still deadly, but allow for a greater chance at resisting and keeping the Player (not the character) involved in the game.
I was never a fan of save-or-die effects.
"Anything but a 1... aww, too bad."
And would not mind the two-roll system that Phantasmal Killer uses.
But I humbly disagree that the dmg from 5th to 7th level needs to be the same, just cause you get range at 7th.
Range is one level bump. The second is where the consistent punch comes in.
-VIC
I'm generally in favor of having Save or Die spells, even as I am hesitant to use them often.
However, given damage, all of them work except the Finger of Death damage is ... ugh.
Give it 5/Caster level at least - that's slightly behind at level 9, ahead by 11th. Given that it's basically untyped damage, it's still pretty powerful. One slight boost to it is that it is empower/maximize'able, unlike the 10/level ones.
I agree save or die spells must stay in. The main reason I came to look at Pathfinder was as an alternative to 4E (as I am sure most people did).
One of the main items I disliked about 4E is the complete reduction of the ability to have the players (and I am one) hurt by magic or risk death. Hold Person, Sleep, Slay Living, Finger of Death, Flesh to Stone are all iconic high fantasy effects. And very little is more iconic them a vorpal blade. And going hand in hand with those items you have Raise Dead and magical healing.
There are times a PC will go down and be out of the fight for a while. Players need a game where they do not need to have their hand held 24/7. Players need a game where they can die.
The fun of an RPG is made up of building new and unique characters and challenging them against Demons and Dragons. And guess what folks, those Demons and Dragons want to kill your characters. Wouldn't you like to be able to return the favor?
It is not fun when you have a character die, but it does give you a chance to have other players save the day and return you to life. Or at the least it allows you to try a new character and role-play something new.
I would like to see a game where I never have to hear the words... "Your character will never die because of one roll of the dice." When you are a level where that is possible, death is not the end.
Did I miss something that said save or die spells are gone? I was under the impression if it's not in Alpha 3 it's still business as usual.
Take a look at Finger of Death and Slay Living. They're now "Finger of Hurting a Lot" and "Moderately Wound Living".
|
I always disliked the easiness of death and ressurection in D&D, so I'm happy to see most of the save or dies gone. I won't mind if a few like phantasmal killer or powerword kill stay (the last one is rather a DIE! effect), but I will certainly not miss the rest. In most fantasy novels outside of D&D death is quite final. I'm not saying that characters should not die or should not be in the danger of doing so, but it should be a seldom experience. It somehow weakens the effect if dying is something less severe than losing parts of your equipment to a rust monster.
Backward compatible?
That really nocks the wind out of a lot of pc's.
Danm I might have to look for another 3.5 supporter I had such high hopes for Pf, I'm leaning towards the breaking point here first Improved trip now this, the bard who sings you to death and yet another monk that isn't incredibly "good" at anything it's all getting very frustrating.
I might have missed it but wouldn't these spells trigger a save or die diff 15 due to massive damage, just as a thought.
Agreed, provided the DM enforced the rule in question, and thus you would have a 2 save mechanic in place to prevent death.
One thing I have noticed with the 10 hp/level mechanic of Finger of Death and Wail of the Banshee, it can put a serious amount of hurt on lower level creatures (if not outright slaying them). As well as opponent of a comparable level.
Where I see this really diverging is that our 13th level Wizard having a chance of automatically slaying a CR 20+ creature in one fell swoop, with Finger of Death. Especially since there is no "Max HD" that the spell could effect. So even then, our 13th level Wizard would have a 5% chance of slaying a CR 30 opponent, going by the old "Save or Die" routine.
So, overall, I see this as a nice alternative to what we used to have. Bringing these effects more inline.
I do agree though, with above posters for a more consistent formula for the new "Save or Dies". The 10 hp/level does work for me. Perhaps even 15 (or 12) hp/level for single target spells, and 10 hp/level for area of effect spells.
:::starts a "KEEP SAVE OR DIE" petition:::
|
Director of Game Design
|
Alright... so, let me explain why Save or Die is (generally speaking) bad for the game.
First off, it is terrible for the players. Over the life time of a high level character, you are going to roll a 1 a couple of times against these critical saves. These spells mean that you just stop having fun. Now, the new spells can still do that, but there is a more reasoned metric than just one d20 roll to decide it.
Second, they grant way too much power to spellcasters. These spells start showing up pretty early and really allow spellcasters to start outshining the combat types.
Third, they can make what was supposed to be a memorable combat, a real let down. Having the BBEG fall over dead because of one botched save is not really fun for anybody.
Finally, they penalize any high level character build that does not work to crank up its Fort and Will saves (rogue, I am looking at you). These characters often end up failing these saves on a roll of greater than 1, and for them, this is an inheriant rule bit that punishes them.
In the end, I feel it was a good decision, but I can see how some might feel otherwise. I am, as always open to debate. As a reminder, I did not mess with the spells that typically had other checks built into them, like phantasmal killer and circle of death.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
PS: Thanks to Monte for letting me use some of these mechanics from BoEM.
|
|
I don't use the massive damage rules, I know a lot of people don't use them either. In fact there's a thread on it currently.
I just don't like the change. I will House-rule it back to normal.
I use action points in my game and one of the things you can use an Action point on is to negate a Save or Die situation. BBEG class bad-guys also have action points, and can do the same thing.
|
Director of Game Design
|
I don't use the massive damage rules, I know a lot of people don't use them either. In fact there's a thread on it currently.
I just don't like the change. I will House-rule it back to normal.
I use action points in my game and one of the things you can use an Action point on is to negate a Save or Die situation. BBEG class bad-guys also have action points, and can do the same thing.
Well, then it certainly sounds like you have a work around for this problem already. I approve. I am not opposed to folks house ruling things that they prefer in their game (until I gain the ability to force you to play it my way with my RPP [role playing police] :-).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
I don't use the massive damage rules, I know a lot of people don't use them either. In fact there's a thread on it currently.
I just don't like the change. I will House-rule it back to normal.
I use action points in my game and one of the things you can use an Action point on is to negate a Save or Die situation. BBEG class bad-guys also have action points, and can do the same thing.
Well, then it certainly sounds like you have a work around for this problem already. I approve. I am not opposed to folks house ruling things that they prefer in their game (until I gain the ability to force you to play it my way with my RPP [role playing police] :-).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
AHHHH!!! Cheese it the role-play cops!! Quick man hide the dice!!
You don't make a game of chance (and that's the point of the dice) more fun by reducing the risks.
I'd hoped the massive pro-save-or-die sentiment expressed on an older Pathfinder "poll" thread would have warded off claims that save-or-die wasn't fun. Fun is subjective, and can only be measured by the audience; if a massive proportion of the player base finds save-or-die fun, then it is fun.
Yep, magic is a great phenomen, for me it's obvious that it can do things most powerful and terrifying that a simple sword !
It's not a problem if a warrior is less deadly than a mage at high level, that's logical : it's team play ! The people that thinks "level down" and save or die" are not fun, should try D&D4.0.
I think you should propose this rule like an option, like "replace save or die effect by 10dmg/cl" for example.
For once Squirrellord and I disagree...
In fact I directly oppose that last statment, based on one point of your statment...
Warriors suck so spellcasters shouldn't get nice things any more.
How about just giving warriors nice things as well instead?
(I'm still not good about the improved trip nerf either ... things like this and sod's lack of Sod'ing, I guess I just can't get behind, where was this poll you mentioned? What where the final results?
|
|
While part of me clings to the 'good old days' of instant death with failed saves, I have to go with a thumbs up for the new spell mechanics for this.
In my own 3.5 game right now I already ruled that spells that are 'save or die' actually bring you to -9 hp and unstable. Meaning one last chance for a buddy to get to you and help. It's prevented two stupid PC deaths in the game already.
So I'm on board with the changes, they're good. Plenty of traps and other things can do them in! >:-)
-DM Jeff
Please bring back save or die spells. Disintegrate should actually, I don't know, disintegrate you, maybe? Finger of death should actually cause death! Slay living should...slay...the....living.
Save or dies should exist, but be used rarely. Maybe make a list of save or die spells and a sidebar that they are optional and for a more gritty style of game, don't outright ban them, it takes too much risk out of the game.
An optional rule may please other people but I like not including it in the official writing.
Perhaps in the listing of a former save or die spell, thre's an indication of it as a (save or die spell) and then an optional gritty rule where these spells instead cause instant death.
I am not a fan of save or die, as technically everything is save or die in my opinion and hit points are there to insure we don't play a 10 minute campaign. Ignoring hit points with certain spells defeats the purpose of the imaginary stamina/luck count of it.
However, if it brings unity to add an option I am all for it.
|
|
While part of me clings to the 'good old days' of instant death with failed saves, I have to go with a thumbs up for the new spell mechanics for this.
In my own 3.5 game right now I already ruled that spells that are 'save or die' actually bring you to -9 hp and unstable. Meaning one last chance for a buddy to get to you and help. It's prevented two stupid PC deaths in the game already.
So I'm on board with the changes, they're good. Plenty of traps and other things can do them in! >:-)
-DM Jeff
That's a pretty good house rule.
|
|
I want to add my voice and say keep SoD but make it require multiple rolls. Making them do damage doesn't sit well IMHO.
Well I think the consensus from those of us who see a multiple saving throw style of mechanic intend for the spell to still do damage; at least thats the way and suggestion I see.
And it may bridge the gap between those persons who agree with Jason that such spells just end the fun (which I mostly agree with), and those that want the spells to still be lethal and ignore hit points altogether.
My suggestion is at the time of the spell completion, the target gets a FORT save. Success gives the reduced effect of the spell (no further saves needed). Failure indicates damage applied as per the spell description (10 pts / level) etc.
The spell is still clinging to the person though - its there invading his mind, and body, and the person can feel the spell still there affecting him....killing him....
The following round, on the Wizards turn, anyone who had failed the original FORT save then makes a WILL save to show he is trying to use will power to shrug off the clinging energy of the spell. A failure of that too then kills the creature.
During that round (before the WILL save is called for), the spell can be removed with a successful Dispel Magic spell - thus saving his life. The damage still remains - but at least there no longer a chance of killing the creature.
This also, like Jason indicated, adds an onus on making sure that multiple good saving throws are not ignored.
Robert
Well I think the consensus from those of us who see a multiple saving throw style of mechanic intend for the spell to still do damage; at least thats the way and suggestion I see.
And it may bridge the gap between those persons who agree with Jason that such spells just end the fun (which I mostly agree with), and those that want the spells to still be lethal and ignore hit points altogether.
My suggestion is at the time of the spell completion, the target gets a FORT save. Success gives the reduced effect of the spell (no further saves needed). Failure indicates damage applied as per the spell description (10 pts / level) etc.
The spell is still clinging to the person though - its there invading his mind, and body, and the person can feel the spell still there affecting him....killing him....
The following round, on the Wizards turn, anyone who had failed the original FORT save then makes a WILL save to show he is trying to use will power to shrug off the clinging energy of the spell. A failure of that too then kills the creature.
During that round (before the WILL save is called for), the spell can be removed with a successful Dispel Magic spell - thus saving his life. The damage still remains - but at least there no longer a chance of killing the creature.
This also, like Jason indicated, adds an onus on making sure that multiple good saving throws are not ignored.
Robert
I 100% agree with Robert's suggestion. This is a terrific mechanic for SoD.