be aware that if you do that [make them save for half], you're greatly increasing the power of the spells, since they are all basically "save for no effect" in 3.5/PF (the maximum partial effect of any of them is 3d6+20 HP damage). Also, the cumulative effect even on successful saves would soon mount up: anyone without a Cleric nearby to cast the relevant healing spells would inevitably die within about 3 rounds. If you wanted to do Con damage on a successful save, I'd say 1 point should be enough, or at most 1d4.
Good call. At 20th level, 3d6+20 hp is about 1.5 points of Con bonus worth of hp, or 3 points of Con damage. So save for 1d4 might be just about right.
Roman:
1) Why should there be a difference of effect other than caster level cap? Wail of the Banshee, for example, is very much like a mass version of Finger of Death, (the only difference being the loss of a partial effect), and if we look at other "mass" spells, they often don't have any difference other than the caster level cap (well, the range is generally changed from Touch to Close, but they wouldn't really work as "mass" spells with a range of Touch). Compare Heal or the Cure Wounds series and those are the only differences. Charm Monster vs Mass CM has no difference at all, except the Close range. Same for the Bull's Strength series. So why should the SoD versions be any different?
As for Slay Living/ Phantasmal Killer vs FoD, there aren't any spells that I know of which are directly comparable, but as I said, the extra melee touch attack or failed Will save required to affect the target is enough to account for the difference in levels, because they make most opponents far less likely to be affected. I think if you want spells with different levels of Con damage, it would make more sense to suggest adding some new spells rather than introducing unbalancing differences in the existing ones.
2) OK, it appears you're right about the HP damage, I hadn't realised that the "HP loss resulting from Con damage can't drop you below 1HP/HD" rule had been dropped in PF (I only downloaded the A3 PDF last week). However, the Commoner has 3.5 HPs on average in PF, so 3.75 damage has only just over a 50% chance to kill him. But the Commoner thing was intended as an extreme example; the point being, an average 1st-level character of any PC class (using PF rules) certainly won't be killed by Slay Living. I don't think it makes any sense to take a save-or-die spell, which is even called Slay Living, and change it so that when a 9th-level character casts it, it doesn't usually kill a 1st-level character (except a Commoner or Adept). As I said, I think it would make more sense to introduce a "lesser"...
Biggus, there is some merit in what you say. There is certainly a precedent of spells of different levels being differentiated by caps. I guess I just thought that greater differentiation among the effects was desirable. I must say that I am sort of neutral at the moment - I prefer differentiating among spells of different levels with more than just a damage cap, but for consistency's sake, your idea of uniform Constitution damage/drain might indeed be more sutaible.
2d6 + Caster Level, however, is too powerful. I would suggest 1d6 + Caster Level. At level 9 (the lowest with a death effect spell), this would cause 10-15 points of constitution drain (12.5 points on average), which is certainly deadly but more reasonable.
I definitely agree is that save for half makes the spells too powerful. How about the saving throw getting rid of the Caster Level bonus to the spell damage and converting the constitution loss from drain to damage? With the idea above (1d6 + Caster Level), it would mean that on successful save, the creature would still take 1d6 Constitution damage.
On another note, should we adjourn the discussion of this issue until such time as spells come up as a topic in the design fora? Or should we continue heedless of the fact that the topic is unlikely to be seen here?
You're being seen. I'm keenly interested in what you're suggesting. We've got a new campaign set to start up in the near-future and I'm playing the priestess of Death. It's high level and I plan on dispensing death magic when suitably provoked. My DM doesn't care for high-level save-or-die spells and she's looking at alternatives. At the very least she's downloaded the Beta and we're changing some of the spells over.
If we use 1d6 + caster level for the Con drain, what caps do you want to put into effect for the maximum drain?
With the 1d6 + caster level Con drain, caps on the maximum caster level used would be necessary, not so when using the 1/2 caster level systems.
The caps could be based on an equivalent amount of damage from damage-causing spells spells - where one point of constitution is equivalent to 2 dice of damage (or perhaps 1 die of damage, hmm). I don't have my 3.5 books with me to look up the caps on damage dice, but that is the principle I would apply.
As to the failed save options, doing a 1d4 or a 1d6 Constitution damage does not make all that much difference in terms of balance - I just proposed the 1d6 idea on the basis that the successful saving throw eliminates the caster level bonus to damage (Note: I feel that doing the opposite and eliminating the roll, but keeping the level bonus would be too deadly).
With respect to extending ability drain/damage idea to other spells - it is a neat idea. There are other ways of 'fixing' these spells, but it is certainly an interesting option.
|
My vote goes to 1d6 + caster level CON drain, capped based on spell level. I think the "1/2 caster level" options (including the +4) result in minimums that are too low for high-level death spells. And CON damage is too easy to fix vs drain.
Regarding other spells using the same system, I think it would be a great idea. Stone to Flesh doing DEX drain makes a lot of sense and flavor; it allows results where a character making their save still suffers a "foot turned to stone" (i.e. 2 points DEX drain, for instance).
What about treating them in a fashion similar to Pathfinder's affliction rules?
Thus the effect in question (whether it be death, paralysis, feeblemind, whatever) has a recurring effect (frequency) that goes on each round and will eventually lead to the conditon in question (dead, turned to stone, paralyzed, etc).
Like the more powerful afflictions they could have steeper requirements for stopping the effects. A powerful death effect might require two consequtive saves to stop the Con damage. They could also require caster level checks to successfully remove with magic.
While this certainly doesn't maintain the "Instant Death" feel of save or die spells it could certainly introduce some suspense and apprehension into the game.
General vote: I also like the Con drain on failed save / Con damage on successful save option best.
Arne: Your idea is very interesting, but as you point out, it does not fit the flavor od death effects all that well. It would make for a great poison spell though!
Bryan and Biggus: The 4 + 2d6 + 1/2 caster level option seems like the worst of the three. It has two many elements - a static 4 a variable 2d6 and 1/2 caster level make it too complex. I think that the 1d6 + caster level is the best solution, as long as the damage caps are set at the right level - if the caps prove impossible to set well, than the 2d6 + 1/2 caster level option would be the most appropriate. Note: There is slight innacuracy in your calculations, Biggus - a Con of 22 would be required to survive the 20th level death effect of 1d6 + caster level, rather than a Con of 25.
Biggus:
I agree on the damage caps for the 1/2 caster level options - I just think the matter of damage caps becomes much less important if only 1/2 caster level is used.
Also, thanks for posting the damage cap table from the DMG, p.36. - I did not have my books at the time, so couldn't look it up.
I am of the opinion that the cap on the caster level bonus should be based on 1 damage die = 1 point of constitution drain.
Also, I would recommend using the divine damage cap as the basis. This is because we are also adding a 1d6 to the caster level bonus and the mean of 1d6 is 3.5, so the maximum caster level bonus should be 3.5 lower than in the DMG damage cap table. Of course, it would be messy to actually subtract 3.5 (or even 3 or 4) from the damage cap table, so it is necessary to subtract 5. Subtracting 5 from the divine table, however, would be too restrictive for death effects and instead of subtracting 5 from the arcane table, we can simply use the divine table, which is slightly less harsh and neatly takes into account that not full 5 should be subtracted anyway (the mean of 1d6 is 3.5, not 5, after all).
Also the table could be extended for epic levels of spells :
Spell
Level...Single....Multiple
..5........15..........10
..6........15..........15
..7........20..........15
..8........20..........20
..9........25..........20
.10........25..........25
.11........30..........25
.12........30..........30
Etcetera...
The pattern adds +5 to the single target cap every odd level and +5 to the multiple target cap every even level.
Of course, the extended table assumes that Pathfinder will base epic level spells on further spell levels, rather than the current epic spell system. We don't yet know what route Pathfidner will take with epic levels, but here is to hoping the current epic spell system goes the way of the dodo. Of course, this is a slight aside.
As another slight aside, kudos to all for the productive discussion here. It is shaping a system that I will likely use in my home games even if it is not adopted in Pathfinder, unless, of course, they come up with something even better.
Great discussion and teamwork on solving this issue guys!
Great thread gang, lots of good ideas here. Here is another idea:
If the target of a Death Effect saves, he takes HP or CON damage (as per various amounts already discussed). If he fails he drops to -1 and dying. The target must immediately make another save. If passed, he continues dying, if he fails, -10 and death.
Another thought is the caster of Death Effects taking temporary CON damage for using it. Perhaps as a result of channeling such negative energy. This would result in more considerate use by mortal casters. A mechanic could also be devised that the amount of CON damage to the caster is reflected in the damage to the target.
Thoughts?
|
|
Bryan:
been thinking about what you said, and I can't see why 16 is too low a minimum for high-level characters. What's the point of changing the spells from death to Con drain if the Con drain is so high hardly anyone can survive it anyway? For example, using 1d6 + caster level cast by a 20th-level mage, a 20th-level Wizard/ Sorcerer would need a Con of 25 to survive, whereas using 4 + 1/2 caster level + 2d6 they'd "only" need a Con of 20; still high, but with the proper spells or magic items they might well be able to reach it, unlike Con 25 which would require them to spend a LOT of resources. And that's if the attacker rolls double 1's for the Con damage. Don't get me wrong, I think if the attacker rolls even average Con damage it should kill most people, but as I said, I don't see the point of changing it from instant-death if they can't even survive the minimum damage.
Yeah, I made an error on the 4+2d6+1/2 caster level. Looking at it, it's actually a bit more deadly than 1d6+caster level at lower levels, and comparable at higher ones. But I do agree with Roman that it's a bit over complicated; I almost think it would be better to go with 3d6+1/2 caster level. The damage range is wider, with lower mins and higher maxs, but the averages are nearly identical. I think overall, I still like 1d6+caster level and its smaller damage range. Probably just comes down to personal preference, at this point.
If the target of a Death Effect saves, he takes HP or CON damage (as per various amounts already discussed). If he fails he drops to -1 and dying. The target must immediately make another save. If passed, he continues dying, if he fails, -10 and death.Another thought is the caster of Death Effects taking temporary CON damage for using it. Perhaps as a result of channeling such negative energy. This would result in more considerate use by mortal casters. A mechanic could also be devised that the amount of CON damage to the caster is reflected in the damage to the target.
Abussou,
I think I tend to agree with Biggus; it has good flavor but even a first level cure spell can save you, which is a bit too easy.With regards to CON damage for using the spells - I wouldn't add it to the spells as-is since I think it would actually hurt the BBEGs more than PCs, but I think that it could add some good options - maybe allow a caster to increase the effects of the spell at the cost of his/her own health. It's somewhat similar to the sanctified and corrupted spells from the Books of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness.
With respect to the caps on Con drain for the other systems (2d6 + 1/2 Caster Level, etcetera), the same principle could apply as to 1d6 plus caster level, but of course with recalculated maximums depending on the frontloading of the effect on the dice averages or static numbers.
Abussou, I agree with Biggus and Bryan on your first idea. As to the second idea, the casting of death spells doing some small amounts of CON damage to the caster, I love it. The flavor is wonderful and I love the idea of a wizard exerting himself in casting a powerful spell only to die in the process. Of course, this also gives casters an additional incentive to hold back on death spells and beautifully highlights the pernicious and hazardous nature of death spells. Unfortunately, though, this is probably a non-starter for a mainstream rule and would change the already weakened death effects by dramatically increasing their casting costs (until now there were only opportunity costs of not casting another spell from the given spell slot). Although not suitable for a universal rule in the current incarnation of D&D/Pathfinder, I might well adopt this rule for special circumstances (casting dark magic in an especially vile temple (where its effects are increased) or particularly dark campaign.
Helpful comments, all of them. I see that my Death Effect idea works out to be little more than a powerful poison effect.
I think that outlines the whole problem with Death Effects. If used with any idea of risk to any party, they do have to be an all or nothing result. You make the save and are alive, or you fail and are dead.
Any result in between, is simply another sort of spell or effect. Any reduction in the effectiveness of a death effect, nullifies it. Why use a death effect (and if following my suggestion the caster loses CON), when a well placed fireball will result in the same target death?
Would a caster use a Death Effect knowing the target could take CON damage and survive rather than instantly dying, or another damaging effect that the caster knows will work, such as a lower level spell slot that targets CON.
For death effects to be used, they have to be all or nothing. Death Effects are a binary option in a multi-option environment. That is why they cause trouble.
Another random musing: Another approach could be to simply have death spells do Con drain = Caster level (subject to caps as outlined above, though perhaps using the arcane, rather than the divine table). This would eliminate the need to roll, thus speeding up play, and mitigate the danger a little bit. It would also mesh with the 'non-variable' effects that death effects were in 3.5E and that they are in the current version of Pathfinder. Still, I usually appreciate a degree of variability of effects.
Note: An interesting (but not important gameplay-wise) effect would arise with the above system, if the spells did 1d8 Con damage on a failed save: The Con damage/drain these spells could do would then be a range from 1 to caster level. That is merely a curiosity that occured to me as I was thinking about the matter.
Another random musing: Another approach could be to simply have death spells do Con drain = Caster level (subject to caps as outlined above, though perhaps using the arcane, rather than the divine table). This would eliminate the need to roll, thus speeding up play, and mitigate the danger a little bit. It would also mesh with the 'non-variable' effects that death effects were in 3.5E and that they are in the current version of Pathfinder. Still, I usually appreciate a degree of variability of effects.I had wondered about something like this, but then I thought that almost every spell which deals damage has a variable effect (the only one I can think of which doesn't is Harm), and all the monsters I know who do ability damage or drain do a variable amount, so it would make sense for there to be a random element in SoD spells' Con drain.
I mostly agree - even when suggesting it I said that I appreciate a degree of variability of effects. On the other hand, there is a precedent for it: Death Effects as currently written in Pathfinder do fixed, rather than variable damage.
In any case, I think we have mostly reached a plateau of development of this idea. We got the basics down and the specifics are mostly personal-preference based (how much variability does one like, etc.). The framework is ready and everybody who is interested can adopt it for their game taking the details they prefer. And of course if Paizo should want to adopt it for Pathfinder (though I am sceptical), they are welcome to do so.
Yeah, I think this has reached its natural conclusion for now, nothing more to add from me at this point.
I've been watching the "SOD" debates on a number of fora for quite a while now, and this conclusion has got to be THE best idea I've ever seen. It's instant, it's deadly, but it's not quite the grim game of Russian Roulette with a d20.
My humble offering to this great train of thought is to use 3d6 + 1/2 CL, simply because "3d6" represents an average ability score in the first place. There's just something "right" about tying the potential damage/drain to the typical score one might have rolled. Lines right up nicely, IMO.
As an afterthought, I'm aware of a number of monsters that would hardly EVER die from these SOD spells, even when maximized at 20th CL (which is in the neighborhood of 21-28 points of ability dmg). Ever seen a critter with 30+ CON? Me too. Not that there are very many of these guys, but is it appropriate to be *unable* to kill these creatures regardless of all the dice rolls?
|
|
Yeah, I don't see a huge issue with there being a few creatures that it would take a couple spells to kill off ... most of those on that list are more fun when they get a few shots in on the PCs, anyway. ;-)
Biggus, I have to admit ... the more I think about it, the more I'm coming around to the 3d6+1/2 caster level side of things. The only thing I still dislike is the minimums (7.5 at 9th level and only 13 at 20th), but I suppose those would be only the rare bad roll.
Other than that, I agree with the other posts that we've kind of leveled off here ... anyone think we should (or know if we can) get this posted to the appropriate beta forum (when the spells discussion comes up)?
Yes, I think we should definitely suggest it once the appropriate forum comes up.
Using 3d6 + 1/2 caster level, the cap on the caster level bonus (using the same principles as in the above-mentioned cap-systems) would be:
Level...Single...Multiple
5.......5........0
6.......5........5
7.......10.......5
8.......10.......10
9.......15.......10
Note: These are the final boni i.e. cap 5 represents the maximum bonus from caster level, which is reached at level 10.
Using 3d6 + 1/2 caster level, the cap on the caster level bonus (using the same principles as in the above-mentioned cap-systems) would be:Level...Single...Multiple
5.......5........0
6.......5........5
7.......10.......5
8.......10.......10
9.......15.......10Note: These are the final boni i.e. cap 5 represents the maximum bonus from caster level, which is reached at level 10.
Hmmm, these seem to be based on subtracting 10 from the divine table, presumably because the average of 3d6 is 10.5. But I thought your original argument for using the divine table for the 1d6 + caster level system was that the d6 approximates the 5 difference* between the arcane and divine tables. So to achieve equality for this system, shouldn't the 3d6 be subtracted from the arcane table too?
That would give:
Level...Single...Multiple
..5.........5............5
..6........10...........5
..7........10..........10
..8........15..........10
..9........15..........15*to be pedantic, the average difference between the arcane and divine tables is 2.5, but that's closer to 3.5 than 5 is, so no worries.
Yes, it should be subtracted from the arcane table... I made a mistake when looking up the tables.
Also, yes, 2.5 is closer to 3.5 than 5 is, precisely why I thought using the divine table would make sense. Of course, it does not reflect the calculations precisely, but it would be unprecedented/clunky to have level caps of 23 or 18 or 13 or 8 or 3...
Another question has occurred to me which needs answering before this system is complete: how will the spells be considered for purposes of immunity and save bonuses - as a Death effect or as an Ability Drain effect? For example, would a creature with Divine Rank 0, which provides immunity to ability drain but not to death effects be affected by them? And would the spell Death Ward protect against them, which blocks death effects but not ability drain?
I can see it working OK either way. If it's still considered a death effect, you'd just need to add a line saying "this spell even affects creatures normally immune to ability drain, but does not affect creatures immune to death effects". If it's considered ability drain, it just follows the normal rules for such effects.
At the moment, I don't have a strong preference for which it should be (although I'm leaning towards them staying as death effects), but it might be that there are implications I haven't thought of which make one definitely better than the other.
A spell can have multiple descriptors that all affect what immunities work against it. Hence, yes, ability drain immunities or the lack of a Constitution ability score or death effect immunities should all render the creature immune against death effects.
Indeed, if you look at creatures that don't have a Constitution score and are thus immune to Constitution drain, they are precisely the types of creatures that ought to be immune to death effects: Constructs and Undead are both not really alive in the first place.
Is the consensus that this would also translate well to spells such as flesh to stone (dex damage?), feeblemind (int damage) and dominate person (cha damage)?
YES, please!
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think ability drain would work fine for Feeblemind and Flesh to Stone, because they have instantaneous duration, ie like death, they're permanent and non-dispellable (as is Insanity). Also, they're totally debilitating if the save is failed. For those reasons, I don't think dominate person is a suitable spell for ability drain. However, you could treat it as a special sort of temporary ability damage, which goes away as soon as the spell does, I suppose. But I'd sooner just stick to instantaneous/ debilitating spells, personally.
Hmmm...I think you're right about dominate. The subject just 'snaps out of it' at the end of the spell. Cha drain would just make things more complicated for no other reason than to make things more complicated.
I haven't read most of this thread so don't chew me up for being ignorant of the current idea.
This idea here was written to make epic-level characters have a more "epic" feel by not instantly dying to Save-or-Die spells.
Epic Variant: No "Save or Die" SpellsBy the time characters reach epic levels, spells that kill the target on a failed save ("save or die" spells) can swing an encounter dramatically on the basis of a single roll. These spells have an effect that dramatically outweighs that of other spells of similar level, because death effects generally don't care about your level or hit points. Effectively, these spells get more powerful as their targets become more powerful. (Some spells, such as circle of death or power word, kill affect creatures up to a maximum HD or hit point value only, which means that they have a built-in upper limit of destructive power.)
If you want to downplay the swing factor of save or die spells, consider altering the spells listed below as described. In each case, the "death" effect is replaced by dice of damage, allowing extraordinarily powerful targets to withstand such spells even on a failed save. This means that you're better off wearing down a tough foe for a few rounds before hitting it with a save or die spell.
Destruction: Instead of simply destroying the target on a failed save, this spell deals 20d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage per caster level, with no upper limit to its damage. If this damage reduces the target to 0 or fewer hit points, the target is destroyed utterly, as described in the spell.
...
Finger of Death: On a failed save, this spell deals 20d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage per caster level, with no upper limit to its damage. If this damage reduces the target to 0 or fewer hit points, the target is slain.
Implosion: Each target that fails its save against this spell suffers 20d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage per caster level, with no upper limit to its damage. If this damage reduces the target to 0 or fewer hit points, the target is killed, as described in the spell.
Prismatic Sphere, and so on: The green (poison) layer (or ray) deals 20d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage per caster level on a failed save, with no upper limit to its damage. If this damage reduces the target to 0 or fewer hit points, the target is killed, as described in the spell.
Slay Living: See finger of death.
Wail of the Banshee: See implosion.
I say just change the Harm damage variant that Pather uses, to this except for characters of all levels, not just epic. (I took out Disintegrate because it isn't a save or die spell, at least not in 3.5)
I had considered this idea, but while it's OK at lower levels, it falls well behind PF's 10/CL damage by level 20 (average 140HPs vs 200HPs). 140HPs damage at level 20 is not really "save-or-die"; it's not much more than the maximum for energy spells (120HPs average), which do half damage on a failed save, unlike SoD which only do lesser partial effects. Possibly 20d6 + 2d6/CL could work, but it's still direct-damage, and the main idea of this thread is to replace HP damage with something both more dangerous and more interesting, while still allowing some chance of survival on a failed save.
Please don't think I'm "chewing you up", I'm just explaining why I don't think this idea is a very good way to scale SoD spells.
No, I see what you're saying. I just thought of it as a sugestion, that's all. And don't worry I don't think that you were "chewing me up" as you said. You wanted to address what was current candidates were for the new solution and what the thread was for, and I didn't read the thread in its entirety so that helps me.
Plus, we're only communicating through the internet so one of the big key elements of communication gets lost in the prosses: Emotion. I can't see what kind of emotion you were displaying, if any, so the intent of how you wanted the message to be percieved is harder to display, so I see why you stated on what you ment but, again, don't worry. It's all good. ;)Back on topic, I think we need to at least leave one SoD because I think it's one of the pinical and, to me, one of the iconic points of Necromancy. Only make it a level 9 spell, so only the most powerful practitioners can use it. It doesn't even need to be a spell that has already been done ('Finger of Death' and 'Destruction' come to mind) it can be a new spell all together.