Why is there a sudden shift away from death magic and save or die effects? I feel that this is an important part of building suspense in a game. It's the idea of having to make the save. I know alot of players hate it, but they hate it when they fail. When they succede their is a true moment of relief. Personally I would rather see more Resurrection than less death magic.
|
As would I.
But the reason given by a lot of those opposed to DM or SoD effects is that when you do fail, and if its not easy to bring them back, then its a real waste of time for the player to remain there until their new PC is ready. Since PC creation for many can be a lengthy time, they feel someone has been denied a chance to have fun.
I tend to like the DM or SoD because of the tension, even when I play instead of DM. But I can see their view point too.
I think the problem is that there isn’t a whole lot of suspense in a save or die effect. It takes a sentence and a dice roll to resolve. I say “he casts disintegration, make your save” and if you don’t, your character’s dead. There might be some tension while you pick up the dice, but that’s it.
I like the idea of these effects taking a turn or two to complete. Fer instance, a petrification spell might do DEX damage every turn until you’re at 0 and completely stone. The player would get to do a couple more things before he was gone and those rounds would be filled with total dread about what was coming.
|
I think the problem is that there isn’t a whole lot of suspense in a save or die effect. It takes a sentence and a dice roll to resolve. I say “he casts disintegration, make your save” and if you don’t, your character’s dead. There might be some tension while you pick up the dice, but that’s it.
I take it that you disliked R.E. Howard's style of writing Conan. Often a person would be introduced to Conan as a great thief or warrior only to be killed easily by a sudden spider sting or "other" monstrosity.
Count me in favor of saving or dying.
I think the problem is that there isn’t a whole lot of suspense in a save or die effect. It takes a sentence and a dice roll to resolve. I say “he casts disintegration, make your save” and if you don’t, your character’s dead. There might be some tension while you pick up the dice, but that’s it.
I like the idea of these effects taking a turn or two to complete. Fer instance, a petrification spell might do DEX damage every turn until you’re at 0 and completely stone. The player would get to do a couple more things before he was gone and those rounds would be filled with total dread about what was coming.
While I agree that a death spell doesn't have alot of build up, the tension of foreshadowing fighting a beholder or a basalisk or a banshee can lead the team to take serious precautions against a powerful monster. And I hate to say this, but if I put one BBEG up against a full party (4-6 pcs) without any henchmen (Henchpersons) they rarely last more than a round or two even when I'm tricking them out to try to stretch out the fight. So a death effect that takes a few rounds to pop means very little.
Also, if a PC can cast a spell that will kill an enemy in 3 rounds, knowing that there is a good chance that the enemy will be dead anyway, why then wouldn't they just cast a spell that inflicts damage as opposed to cast a spell that may not even be needed?
I think that a save or die spell can be a game shaker, but only if it is still effective.
...if I put one BBEG up against a full party (4-6 pcs) without any henchmen (Henchpersons) they rarely last more than a round or two even when I'm tricking them out to try to stretch out the fight.
Wow, that sounds really un-awesome.
|
|
I'm really of two minds about SoD magic... one the one hand, it's really kinda cool to be able to absolutely snuff something out with a single spell. Truly powerful magic mojo. On the other hand, it can very seriously derail a DM's plot or take what was a significant amount of work on the part of the DM and trash it in a matter of seconds. On the other hand (maybe I *am* a Green Ranger, OK?), it's mostly one-sided: the players love it as long as they spells are pointed at the bad guys.
I think my preference is to see them go away and have something like what was described above where a death effect takes some time, with slow debilitation each round - thus giving the party a chance to save their comrade (if such spells happen to be aimed at the party) if they want to break away from direct combat long enough to cast some kind of spell (that would have to be developed if it doesn't already exist somewhere) to slow the death effect, pause it, or reverse it.
...if I put one BBEG up against a full party (4-6 pcs) without any henchmen (Henchpersons) they rarely last more than a round or two even when I'm tricking them out to try to stretch out the fight.Wow, that sounds really un-awesome.
True, but with powergamers, it is a very real observation in some games.
Save or Die is cool as kind of a finishing move, but it totaly sucks if it happens in the first or second round of combat, either if it kills a PC or a major villain.
Well, more resurrection is there, too, as even the lower raising spells won't permanently rob you of levels or anything.
And it's very easy to change death spells back to be death spells, since they still have the Death descriptor. So if you want them to be literally deadly, all that is required is one line on your houserules.
On the other hand it is important to keep the players on edge and to provide for thrill & tension.
I'm really trusting to y'all's experience on this 'cause I don't game in those high levels. How do you play up that thrill and tension? It seems to me that, when directed against a PC, a SoD attack lasts for as long as it takes for the DM to announce the attack and the player to roll his dice.
I guess if the players went into the encounter with foreknowledge that the evil wizard often disintigrates his enemies, that would add some tension to the encounter, and some creatures have known SoD effects like Medusa and Beholders. But it seems like the tension depends on the players knowing in advance that the opponent they're facing has the ability to kill them with a thought.
Do you folks account for that?
I guess if the players went into the encounter with foreknowledge that the evil wizard often disintigrates his enemies, that would add some tension to the encounter, and some creatures have known SoD effects like Medusa and Beholders. But it seems like the tension depends on the players knowing in advance that the opponent they're facing has the ability to kill them with a thought. Do you folks account for that?
That's what a lot of my games are all about -- learning the bad guy's abilities and finding a way to counter them.
Why not use the variant rule where death effects result in 20d6 dmg.? Still a boat-load of damage, but the chance you'll survive goes up the more HD you have.
|
mmmm while I admit it truly sucks to be the receiving end of a Save or Die spell, it makes sense.
Ever watch Black Hawk Down (or better- read the book). Now I know I am mixing genres but is for the idea here. In BHD guys are trucking about and then shot to the head. They are dead.
Save or Die.
Combat is NASTY. Death finds you slow and fast. It's almost never fair. It just... is what it is.
Save or Die sucks, but it should stay.
@Blackgragon: just for the record: what is a BBEG?Big Bad End Guy
I've also heard it as Big Bad Evil Guy.
Save or die once in a while isn't a bad thing: That's what death spells are for!
However, at high levels in 3.5, the game gets glutted with 'Save or Die' effects. Harm, Slay Living, Finger of Death, Disintegrate, Flesh to Stone, Dominate Monster, Weird, Magic Jar, Phantasmal Killer, Implosion, Imprisonment, powerful Gaze effects, Massive Damage and Vorpal weapons are all easy to get. When combat degenerates into 'who fails first', it feels arbitrary and unfair.
The other problem with Save or Die effects is that they pretty much ignore previous events in the combat. Dealing damage to a target that's going to be Finger of Deathed the next turn is more or less a waste of time, unless you're hoping the 3d6 damage on a passed save will finish it off. It seems like, if you've been beaten half to death, it should be easier to rip your soul out, like Death Knell does. Most of the death effects could be rebuilt as simply doing massive amounts of damage, like Disintegrate does. That way, even though they mostly do the same thing, truly epic individuals or massive monsters might still survive, and it interacts better with the existing 'how to kill you' mechanic of HPs.
I also like the idea of Flesh to Stone being dex damage over time.
Most of the death effects could be rebuilt as simply doing massive amounts of damage, like Disintegrate does. That way, even though they mostly do the same thing, truly epic individuals or massive monsters might still survive, and it interacts better with the existing 'how to kill you' mechanic of HPs.
That's true; but then HD give you "double bang for the buck": higher saving throws, AND more hp. So if you have twice as many HD, you might have something like a 4x greater chance of survival. So it depends on how important you want HD to be, with respect to combat. Save-or-take-a-lot-of-damage helps ensure that high HD creatures usually win. Save-or-die minimizes the effect of HD, making combat risky even for high HD ceatures.
|
|
I tend to be against SoD spells for a couple of reasons.
One, they tend to be a good way to drop the fun on both sides. Combats can last a long time in 3.5 and when someone is just dropped by a spell like that it ends up being a 'well, can you go get us some food or something?' since the player is either going to take over an NPC if one is available or is just going to be sitting around.
And on the other side of things, just dropping a boss who has all kinds of build up with a lucky roll isn't any fun either. We have epic talks of the warmage who played in SCAP who nuked a red dragon and was snatched up by it and provoked it into full attacking him while he had a cold fire shield up until it brought itself down, we even talk well of him later tossing out a phantasmal killer in desperation against a black dragon who was wailing on the group, knowing it wasn't going to fail its two saves, then when a 2 and a 1 were rolled the group cheered(I'm much more ok with PK because it does have the built in buffer of two saves, though I could still be cool with it just being a heavy damage spell). But any games we have been in where a major enemy was somehow just 1 shotted? Major let down.
The other reason I tend to dislike SoD spells is because with few exceptions they are generally all or nothing things. Its one of the things I didn't like about 3.5 turning as well. You tend to use them and either you win, lets keep going, whatever the rest of the group had done to them doesn't matter, or you fail and you may as well have spent your turn scratching yourself. This is a big deterrent on both sides I think. Players like to feel their characters are able to be useful on their rounds, and if you have a bad guy you want to be scary, you don't want him to just do nothing since he's probably getting cut down pretty quick by a group of determined players.
-Tarlane
Hmm...I wonder if something could be cooked up where the % of HP remaining gives you a bonus or penalty on the saving throw.
Fer instance, if you (or the big bad) are at full hit points, you get, like a +4 to your saving throw. At 1/4 HP you'd get -4 to your save. That would encourage players and DMs to hold off the insta-kill powers until the battle has progressed a bit, in effect making them "finishing moves", and rewarding the successes of your teammates.
This has probably been mentioned before but why not just put both options in the spell? that way they can choose when they take they start if its save or die or just plain hp damage?
I'd buy that option.
Hmm...I wonder if something could be cooked up where the % of HP remaining gives you a bonus or penalty on the saving throw.
Fer instance, if you (or the big bad) are at full hit points, you get, like a +4 to your saving throw. At 1/4 HP you'd get -4 to your save. That would encourage players and DMs to hold off the insta-kill powers until the battle has progressed a bit, in effect making them "finishing moves", and rewarding the successes of your teammates.
I like this option the best. Takes a bite out of the SoD effects power at the annoying full hit points stage where bad luck can snuff a PC/BBEG in one roll before anything gets done. But characters close to death or BBEG are increasingly vulnerable as they sustain damage.
Have the wizard hang on to that Phantasmal Killer until the party takes a couple bites out of the bad guy. Then when he's looking a little ragged "FINISH HIM!"
Also adds some new uses for the deathwatch spell.
|
I have always done something a little different with save or die spells. A failed save put you at -9 and dying. Pretty close to dead, but if you have friends around, they can save you.
Even if ou have friends, they have to get to you, which could be a challenge and dangerous in itself. If you are alone, you are pretty much dead. (Don't go anywhere alone) Getting you back to healt is a huge use of resources too, for one spell, specially if the guy that got hit was the cleric. Potions anyone?
When hitting the bad guy, same thing, if he has friend, he could be ok. If hes solo, he can be screwed unless he is prepared somehow.
I'm in full favor of save or die spells. I believe that watering down D&D further by pandering to weak players who are willing to reap the rewards but not risk the risks is exactly why a product to separate from the travesty of 4e needed to be made.
Don't let yourself or your players believe for an instant that dying isn't every bit as fun as playing. After all, more great heroes have died than have lived, and legends are made from those rare, rare few who survive to old age to tell their tales.
It's not fear of death. It's disgust with pure ill-luck-based, through no fault of the player, undramatic death that retards the story. It should be made much less a part of the game.
And it's not save or die from the player's perspective. It's save or spend several hours watching other people have fun (while they end the combat, get back to civilization or a safe point, scrape the cash together, and cast the spell).
And that's the best case scenario; worse case scenario is de-railing the entire campaign plot to introduce the party's newest bestest buddy, who will be dropped like a used Kleenex as soon as their previous bestest buddy gets raised.
The WORST case scenario is the party deciding that the mission is too important for the characters to abandon or delay, thus leaving the player out in the cold for several weeks. If you're behind enemy lines or on a time clock or, god help you, on a time clock behind enemy lines and are medium level and thus without even raise dead or reincarnate.
And all of this happens not because you're a bad role player, not because you designed a character badly, not because you made a mistake in tactics, but because you rolled badly.
You rolled badly one time.
Is that really worth forcing a player to sit in the time out chair for several hours to several weeks?
And it's inevitable that you'll miss that roll, simply because you have to roll tons of saving throws and you will miss one some time. When repeated enough times, "Save or die" becomes "die."
Don't confuse an opposition to save or die effects with a desire to remove consequences from the game. Consequences make the game fun and spur role-playing. Character death can and should be a part of that, but only when it is dramatic and satisfying, not random and with terrible consequences either to the story or to the player.
You rolled badly one time.
I have to say, this feeling that every PC is entitled to an epic death is nonsense. If every single pc drags his ass to die like a dragon ball z fight the ones that truly have and deserve epic deaths stand a chance at being overshadowed by worthless adventurers who simply weren't allowed to die by safety net rules keeping them alive.
Unless you want the lands of fantasy to be crammed full of people who refuse to die the way psychotics crowd bus stations because nobody has the heart to make them leave, I suggest you take a long hard look at what kind of utter idiocracy you're creating here.
I have to say, this feeling that every PC is entitled to an epic death is nonsense. If every single pc drags his ass to die like a dragon ball z fight the ones that truly have and deserve epic deaths stand a chance at being overshadowed by worthless adventurers who simply weren't allowed to die by safety net rules keeping them alive.
Unless you want the lands of fantasy to be crammed full of people who refuse to die the way psychotics crowd bus stations because nobody has the heart to make them leave, I suggest you take a long hard look at what kind of utter idiocracy you're creating here.
D&D is a GAME which people play for FUN. Hence, your analogy is flawed.
Of course, fun varies from person to person. So, if your players are happy to die like gimps, because they rolled badly one time, and also like to sit around for the rest of the evening to create a new character or wait for the rezz, power to you.
Just don´t assume that many people like twiddling their thumbs for hours on end. My players surely don´t.
Why is there a sudden shift away from death magic and save or die effects? I feel that this is an important part of building suspense in a game.
Let me phrase the question the other way: Why do you consider the new versions of death magic spells so weak? Ten damage per caster level is nothing to sneeze at for PCs (at least in the games I've played in)! A massive amount of damage is just as suspenseful as instant death in most cases, isn't it?
As he said- SoDs are actually anti-climactic from both player and DM perspective most of the time.
If the players have the opportunity to prepare, and do so, then there is no SOD because the players are prepared.
If they can't prepare or for some reason come to a valid but incorrect conclusion then the SoD just kills them. It's not "climactic".
A great wyrm red dragon rearing back and spitting firey d6's at you, watching as the DM talleys the total and then announces the damage- that tends to be rather suspenseful.
Getting flanked by twin NPC rogues and watching with horror as the DM rolls their SA dice- that tends to be suspenseful.
Why? Because the first one isn't likely to kill you- byut you can see exactly what's about to happen to you if you don't do something about it.
When the Bodak attacks you- You die. There is no "what happens next round". You roll and you die, and then you are screwed. that is the problem with SoD. The suspence isn't in "what do I do" the suspense is in "hope i don't roll below X, 'cuz then I'm dead".
From the Other side of the DM screen the problem is that SoD's are entirely too effective. Whether against the BBEG or a room of mooks, all it takes is any one of a multitude of spells to clear the room. Now myself, I'm not against wizards occasionally clearing mooks. Everyone likes to feel special sometimes. The problem is that realistically the Party should look at this and say "we want the wizard to do that everytime, so we don't get hurt nearly as often". It's a VERY logical tactical course of action. (not to mention the poor Sorc who takes an SoD. Not using it is basically ignoring the one class feature he gets- spells known).
What you ened up with then is not the occasional enemy casting or using an SOD so you can watch with satisfaction as the PC's each roll their d20 of death, one by one seeing who lives or dies. Instead it turns into an extremely quick death-by-d20 for very nearly any badguy the PC's come across. the DM then either has the option of making all enemies immune to it, asking the player to stop it, or letting it happen. Two of those Three are effectively putting the nerf to SoD's and the third leads to the rest of the group going to get pizza while the SoD's play the game for them.
SoD's are not just a problem for players, but for the campaign as a whole. They are too numerous and entirely too powerful. Entering a room that has 6 mooks and a BBEG should be the beginning of a scary and tenseful battle whereby the PC's attempt to overcome greater numbers and prevail in the face of adversity. It should not be a room where the mage extends his hand and says "Bye bye baddies, hello loot" and all the guys fall over dead.
-S
I like the idea of sod spells and effects, but then, there is the problem with "oh...died"...
But there is the great thing with "OH!...died, damn!". At leat with my players, the kinda like the thing of one of them falling and the others mostly saying "RUN FOR YOUR LIFES!" or "WIZARD, NOW!!!" or something like it...
I simply don't use sod against them without some warning. Makin the effect a full round casting was an idea I had, and meybe I'll use again, but usually the characters are warned about bodaks, basilisks and the other ks.
Also, liked the +4 bonus vs save or die granted to "non-bloodied" creatures! So, Common enemies (in my games, the ones without classe levels, who have just 10 or 11s for atributes and half hp per die) don't get this bonus, but elite (pc class levels and elite scores) and (same, but player minimum scores and 75% hp per die -basicaly, as pcs) have this bonus! It is great!
And the slow petrification also wins me. I'm thinkin about giving a one-turn delay to many effects now, but not all, mind you -there are some nasty spells that simply make even a great dragon turn into dust. That the Magic of the game.
Of course, fun varies from person to person. So, if your players are happy to (Edit: PARTICIPATE IN ADVENTURES), because they (EDIT:performed badly at something), and also like to (EDIT: Get excited about their new character while swapping war stories about their last character which I'm sure you haven't experienced because you coddle your players) power to you.
Why thank you for your input. I do consider myself to tell a rather good tale, and my players seem to have quite a bit of fun.
|
Of course, fun varies from person to person. So, if your players are happy to (Edit: PARTICIPATE IN ADVENTURES), because they (EDIT:performed badly at something), and also like to (EDIT: Get excited about their new character while swapping war stories about their last character which I'm sure you haven't experienced because you coddle your players) power to you.Why thank you for your input. I do consider myself to tell a rather good tale, and my players seem to have quite a bit of fun.
Nice trolling there sir. Do your posts regenerate too?
Seriously though, I am fully in favour of the "bloodied" bonus to save DC's, though I agree with the OP that time delays would often make the spell much less likely to be used. These changes are generally excellent though. Death Ward on every high-level villain balances SoDs, but it balances them in a far more repetitive and less fun way.
Of course, fun varies from person to person. So, if your players are happy to (Edit: PARTICIPATE IN ADVENTURES), because they (EDIT:performed badly at something), and also like to (EDIT: Get excited about their new character while swapping war stories about their last character which I'm sure you haven't experienced because you coddle your players) power to you.Why thank you for your input. I do consider myself to tell a rather good tale, and my players seem to have quite a bit of fun.Nice trolling there sir. Do your posts regenerate too?
Seriously though, I am fully in favour of the "bloodied" bonus to save DC's, though I agree with the OP that time delays would often make the spell much less likely to be used. These changes are generally excellent though. Death Ward on every high-level villain balances SoDs, but it balances them in a far more repetitive and less fun way.
People seem to be forgetting the other problem with SoD's: the fact that they're another way for spellcasters to end encounters in one round at high levels, thus making fighters more useless. And if both sides have SoD effects, combat can potentially be decided by which side wins initiative.
I have read many posts related to this topic. Much of what is discussed really boils down to "Group Style." Having played the game for about 26+ years, I've seen many good rules and many "not-so-good rules" For most of us, it is a question of where your tastes is.
I like the idea of SoD effects. However, I have applied a mechanic I use with almost all saving throw effects. Depending on how much you succeed or fail the saving throw. Decides the effect which will take place. Example; Using Slay Living on a bad guy or PC. The save is rolled with the target needing, say a 20 DC to succeed....
The dice are cast....the target rolls a 20 (success!!!!He/she lives), misses it by 4 or less (wounds rip through his or her body, taking 1d6/level of caster. OUCH!), misses save by 5-9 points (massive wounds sear through flesh, organs implode, taking 2d6/level of caster. Lesser creatures will certainly be dead or near death! However, epic heroes will stand there ground shakened, but not out!). Finally, Those failing their saving throw by 10+ or rolling a natural "1" (Find the cold embrace of death!).
This is just an example of what many "old school gamers" do when they find a certain rule lacks the unique style of their group.Of course, this can be modified to fit for any SoD or even poison type effects. I even use it to make psionic powers fun and flavorful. I also like the use of Hero/Action points to give PCs or the BBEG an edge on saving throws. The ability to re-roll a natural "1" or give a bonus to your saving throw truely makes them a cut of above everyone else.
After reading this thread, I did like the idea of the bonus to the saving throw for "bloodied" characters/enemies. My mind is racing to explore this new idea and apply it to other combat effects besides SoDs.
Hats off. Very ingenius and resourceful. If you have not been playing for a while (Old School), then you are certainly a credit to the new generation of gamers. Nice to see someone who likes to implement "home brew rules".
I think SoD has its place, and can add to the drama as long as it's not overdone (which is hasn't been in the campaigns I've played in) I have lost a few characters to SoD and while I wasn't happy, the times it happened were completely appropriate from a story-telling/scene point of view. At least you *have* a save, it's not like power word kill where you just keel over. If all death effects were like that, then I *would* be squealing like a stuck pig. Why shouldn't some potent creature be able to kill with a gesture? Fantasy is rife with creatures that can kill with a gaze, touch etc. Sure, you can end combat with an SoD spell, but many other things can do this too. Whether its massive melee damage or a spell - the end result is the same: you're dead. I don't really mind either way though - the proposed massive damage substitution works for me too.
People seem to be forgetting the other problem with SoD's: the fact that they're another way for spellcasters to end encounters in one round at high levels, thus making fighters more useless. And if both sides have SoD effects, combat can potentially be decided by which side wins initiative.
At high levels it is comparatively easy to protect yourself against death effects (death ward, spell immunity etc). In fact, most high level parties have items that do just that - or spell casters like clerics who can provide such protective spells. In these cases, SoD spells become pointless. Many high level spell users opt to use sure-fire damage dealing spells, since they *assume* that any well prepared villain will have the appropriate protection and they want to guarantee some damage. And usually they are right. Certainly, I gave up trying to use SoD spells for just this reason - sure, you can take care of a minion, but dropping a fireball or some such is generally better for ensuring damage.
I don't object to the massive damage variant, but I do think that removing SoD will weaken the "horror" of many tough encounters.
I'm not sure I agree about it lessening the horror.
A group of 4 PC's walk into a room of 7 mooks and 1 BBEG.
Without SoD they actually have to enter combat with 8 people.
Going into melee against near 2:1 odds is far more life threatening than if they just SoD the mooks and gank the boss.
With SoD they have to enter combat with 1 BBEG. the 7 mooks are just wasted prep time for the DM.
If we assume that your statements are correct and that every major villain is as protected as the PC's, that still leaves the vast majority of the story arc succeptible to SoD. The PC's clear through the adventure only to have one battle at the end. Then do the same to the next. and the next.
high level play becomes "i win Init, I win".
It's fun the first time it happens, and if used sparingly it can even become a nice tool. the DM can let the player's ego swell by occasionally tossing in an encounter of 20 some odd folks, knowing the PC's can SOD themselves to victory.
The problem is that once PC's can do that, there is little need to use the other spells/abilities.
Why subject everyone to life-threatening injury if you can point a finger and murder a room?
It Does eventually come down to init and the 5% chance to die.
Or the DM can arbitrarily shift every monster towards being completely immune to them- in which case the DM has effectively removed SoD's from the players without actually saying so.
(not that undead-type campaigns are out of the question.. but a sudden and complete paradigm shift from SOD'ables to Un-Sod'ables is quite noticeable, and is essentially a nerf.)
-S
I'm not sure I agree about it lessening the horror.
...
If we assume that your statements are correct and that every major villain is as protected as the PC's, that still leaves the vast majority of the story arc succeptible to SoD. The PC's clear through the adventure only to have one battle at the end. Then do the same to the next. and the next.
...
-S
using a massive damage substitution doesn't prohbit this either. The damage is deliberately set so high (e.g 10 hp/lvl) so that at higher levels it is pretty much a guaranteed kill against any low level minions. But this is really an argument against spells which do a lot of damage as being unbalancing - a different argument I think. Also, most SoD's are single target/minion - and those that are not are either very high level like Wierd (and thus designed to be terrifying in power) or limited by HD (like circle of death). Hardly the mook-destructor you're alluding to above (well not in an appropriately leveled adventure - if someone sends canon fodder at you they will die anyway, and cause you potentially to burn spells - a good strategy). I still think the "frisson" (!) of possible death by pointy finger adds to the verisimilitude of the gaming experience. But this is a personal opinion, so I don't expect everyone to share it.If you have taken precautions and learned death ward etc - that's good planning. If the enemy has done that, he has planned well too. Just cast greater dispel and then SoD him ;-) There are ways around everything - which is what I like about table-top gaming in general. I suppose it can be abused - but most spells/rules can. The DM just needs to do his job. It's never been an issue in campaigns we've played in (even though I have been on the receiving end twice) - c'est la vie. I died and was reborn, better, stronger, faster (well, almost).
Count me in favour of SOD effects. At least with Sod, players are entitled to saves, spell resistance or some such. I've had PC's taken out of combat due to MELEE characters before their turn, so I see little reason to remove a spell which potentially has the same effect.
Beside, if you change death effects to "X damage/level", what makes it any different from a bland, boring spell like fireball? (Other than the "death" descriptor).
|
|
My beef with save or die is from a storytelling perspective. It's just plain anticlimactic and frustrating to set up a big heroic epic encounter and have a character keel over dead because some minor encounter on the way there included a save or die effect, or, equally frustrating for the DM, the big bad evil guy at the end of a months-long storyline dies in round one due to a poor save.
If that storyline was a movie, the audience would be all, "WTH! Batman just keeled over dead from the Scarecrow's deadly fear gas? What about the epic encounter with R'as al-Ghul and the Guild of Shadows?"
It's not just a game, it's also a story, meant to entertain, and risk is definitely part of the entertainment, but for Green Slime or Rot Grubs to wipe out characters willy-nilly, when *DRAGONS* can't, there is something wrong with the game's notion of 'heroic' and 'epic.'
And no, that's not me asking for Dragons to have Save or Die Breath Weapons. They are deadly enough. It's dramatic and exciting for a character to die in a big climactic battle, but for some random poison needle trap or 3 HD ghoul to take someone out in a 'warm up encounter' derails the flow of the story. The party, in my experience, will find plenty of ways to unnecessarily endanger themselves without my putting in various ways that a bad die roll can ruin everyone's evening, including mine!