Whereas previously death effects meant instant death on saving throw failure before, now they merely do straight hit point damage - this makes them effectively evocation spells in all but name and simply adding more normal damage spells is well... boring. I understand the balance reasons why this was done, but there must be other solutions to the problem.
I would suggest the following: Let's have death effects automatically bring creatures down a number of hit point thresholds. The relevant death effect/spell brings the creature down 1 hit point below the appropriate hit point threshold.
Possible hit point thresholds:
Healthy/Injured
Injured/Disabled
Disabled/Dying
Dying/Dead
The healthy/injured threshold does not exist at the moment, since there is no 'injured' condition. This threshold could be set at 50% of maximum hit points, so the 'injured' condition would be analogous to the 'bloodied' condition in 4E, but other thresholds could be chosen (20% of hit points, 25% of hit points, Constitution score hit points, 10 + Con bonus hit points, etcetera, etcetera). If desired, we could make up even more thresholds (say every 20% or 25% of hit points could be a threshold).
Note: I am assuming an expanded range for the Dying condition and the Disabled condition.
The lowest level death effect is the 5th level spell: Slay Living
The highest level death effect is the 9th level spell: Wail of the Banshee (which works on multiple targets)
Therefore:
5th level death effects: 1 threshold
6th level death effects: 1d2 thresholds
7th level death effects: 1d3 thresholds
8th level death effects: 1d4 thresholds
9th level death effects: 1d4 thresholds, multiple targets
Some minor hit point damage a la Slay Living's 3d6 +1/level is something the spells can do when the saving throw against them succeeds.
If we have more thresholds, the spells would need to be modified accordingly, though I suppose a case could be made for keeping the maximum threshold roll 1 point lower than the number of thresholds, so that fully healthy opponent couldn't be killed outright, but I would prefer to keep that possibility, though make it less probable.
Note: If greater difficulty of outright death from death effects were desired, it might be an idea to grant a saving throw for each threshold the spell tries to bypass.
Apart from being more interesting than doing flat hit point damage, this system is also good at:
1) Giving casters an incentive to hold back spells, as they have a higher chance of killing somebody when already injured...
2) Fostering tension - after a failed saving throw, the party on the receiving end prays for a low threshold roll, whereas when the party does damage they hope for a good roll...
I guess I am just not keen on Death Effects dealing flat hit point damage. What do you think about this alternative system?
Not a good idea, IMO.
1) Not a convincing threat: Simply does not do enough to cause any fear or tension whatsoever. A small amount of HP damage simply doesn't cut it. Contrast Tasha's Hideous laughter (a 1st level spell for bards!) which takes you out of combat altogether. Plenty of other spells that all but completely remove an enemy from combat: Colour Spray, Deeper Slumber, Fear, Stinking Cloud, Confusion, Otto's Irresistible Dance, Maze, Power Word: Stun/Kill.2) Behind the curve damage-wise, at least with respect to the earlier death spells. Example: A 10th level fighter with 16 con will have, on average 10 + 9*5.5 + 10*3 = 89 HPs. A Slay Living spell as per your scheme will do about half of that by the MOST EXTREME INTERPRETATION, or 44.5 points of damage. An Empowered Fireball of CL 10(equivalent in level to Slay Living) will do 52.5 damage to multiple targets. A Maximized Scorching Ray will deal 48 points of damage at range without even allowing a save. As the target becomes more wounded, the thresholds become separated by fewer hit points; meaning that the spells are even LESS effective compared to blast evocations. At least as written in alpha 3, the death spells start out on the high-end damage wise.
3) Needlessly complicated. Not everyone likes having to haul a calculator around when they game. Your method not only requires multiple calculations to determine thresholds, but requires multiple NEW calculations each time a PC goes up a level. In contrast, these categories are used nowhere else.
1) I think it is a pretty convincing threat. Consider that the healthy/injured threshold would surely not be higher than at 50% of hit points and could be much lower (perhaps equal to Constitution score). If that is not threatening enough, than we could simply give all save or die spells the 1d4 threshold effect (with only save DCs and the damage done in case of save differing by spell level) perhaps with a save for each threshold.
2) Right, but we have not decided on where the healthy/injured threshold would lie. If it is at 50% hit points, then your scenario works, but if it is at Constitution score hit points, then your 10th level fighter with 89hp and 16 Con, could take 73 points of damage from just slay living (even if we stick to the 1 threshold effect for 5th level spells)
3) If it sounds complicated than that is a failure of communication on my part, not the complexity of the system which is very simple. The thresholds all exist already, so there is no need for additional calculations (apart from the healthy/injured threshold, which does not exist, but an injured condition would be desirable, in my opinion, regardless of whether or not this system of death effects is implemented). In fact, the calculations are easier than with normal damage spells: you just move to 1 hp below the requisite threshold.
What I would suggest is that they keep the base damage they have in 3.5 (For example 3d6+1 per level for Finger of Death). Normally this is the damage the target takes if he makes the saving throw. How about the target fails the saving throw the target takes 3d6 damage +1 per level Constitution damage and if the target makes the saving throw then the damage is hitpoint damage instead.
This may be a bit much perhaps change it to 3d6 +1 per two levels of the caster. I just dont like the feel of Death spells inflict straight hitpoint damage.
Alternately you could remove the save entirely from Death effects and simple say if the caster rolls higher than the targets Con on 3d6 +1 per level the target dies. If not the target takes the rolled damage in hitpoints.
Or..If the caster rolls over the targets CON then the target saves or dies.
Just some ideas.
Making the damage from these spells apply to a target's Constitution score instead of hit points could work. The 3.5 versions of the spells couldn't affect anything without a Con score anyway IIRC, so it wouldn't change what they could affect in Pathfinder. It would also preserve most of the lethality of the spells without being just 'Save or Die'.
My 2cp :)
Your Friendly Neighborhood Dalesman
"Bringing Big D**n Justice to the Bad Guys Since 1369 DR"
|
What I would suggest is that they keep the base damage they have in 3.5 (For example 3d6+1 per level for Finger of Death). Normally this is the damage the target takes if he makes the saving throw. How about the target fails the saving throw the target takes 3d6 damage +1 per level Constitution damage and if the target makes the saving throw then the damage is hitpoint damage instead.
This may be a bit much perhaps change it to 3d6 +1 per two levels of the caster. I just dont like the feel of Death spells inflict straight hitpoint damage.
Alternately you could remove the save entirely from Death effects and simple say if the caster rolls higher than the targets Con on 3d6 +1 per level the target dies. If not the target takes the rolled damage in hitpoints.
Or..If the caster rolls over the targets CON then the target saves or dies.
Just some ideas.
Making the damage from these spells apply to a target's Constitution score instead of hit points could work. The 3.5 versions of the spells couldn't affect anything without a Con score anyway IIRC, so it wouldn't change what they could affect in Pathfinder. It would also preserve most of the lethality of the spells without being just 'Save or Die'.
My 2cp :)
Your Friendly Neighborhood Dalesman
"Bringing Big D**n Justice to the Bad Guys Since 1369 DR"
I think that's a great idea. It even keeps the feel of a necromantic [death] effect much better than hit point damage, IMHO. Perhaps the most powerful ones could even do CON drain (just a thought).
I think that's a great idea. It even keeps the feel of a necromantic [death] effect much better than hit point damage, IMHO. Perhaps the most powerful ones could even do CON drain (just a thought).What I would suggest is that they keep the base damage they have in 3.5 (For example 3d6+1 per level for Finger of Death). Normally this is the damage the target takes if he makes the saving throw. How about the target fails the saving throw the target takes 3d6 damage +1 per level Constitution damage and if the target makes the saving throw then the damage is hitpoint damage instead.
This may be a bit much perhaps change it to 3d6 +1 per two levels of the caster. I just dont like the feel of Death spells inflict straight hitpoint damage.
Alternately you could remove the save entirely from Death effects and simple say if the caster rolls higher than the targets Con on 3d6 +1 per level the target dies. If not the target takes the rolled damage in hitpoints.
Or..If the caster rolls over the targets CON then the target saves or dies.
Just some ideas.
Making the damage from these spells apply to a target's Constitution score instead of hit points could work. The 3.5 versions of the spells couldn't affect anything without a Con score anyway IIRC, so it wouldn't change what they could affect in Pathfinder. It would also preserve most of the lethality of the spells without being just 'Save or Die'.
My 2cp :)
I am going to third this idea of concentrating on CON as the focus of death effects. It is, in fact, probably better than my initial threshold idea.
I would suggest the following mechanics for the Death Effects/Spells as Constitution damage/drain idea:
5th level death effects/spells do Constitution damage equal to 1d6 + ½ caster level.
6th level death effects/spells do Constitution damage equal to 2d6 + ½ caster level.
7th level death effects/spells do Constitution damage equal to 3d6 + ½ caster level.
8th level death effects/spells cause Constitution drain equal to 3d6 + ½ caster level.
9th level death effects/spells cause mass Constitution drain equal to 3d6 + ½ caster level.
Upon a successful fortitude save by the target, death effects/spells do hit point damage instead of Constitution damage.
Note 1: 8th level death effects/spells could possibly be allowed to do mass Constitution damage instead of single target Constitution drain.
Note 2: The + ½ caster level term could be replaced with the spell level of the spell to get rid of scaling if so desired, but ½ caster level is probably preferable.
|
|
Agreed, the breakdown by level looks very good and easy to implement.
As for the poison spell, I always liked the idea of it being able to replicate existing poisons (that the caster could choose between), and more powerful poisons becoming available as caster level increases. So you wouldn't be limited to just lethal ones. (This is likely a house rule I would add if I ever ran my own campaign ...)
|
Something I've been trying with the SOD spells in my games is 'continuous' damage round to round. Initial damage in the amount of 2d6 per spell level.
Slay Living: Does 10d6 points of damage to a single target. A successful Fortitude save halves the damage, and the spell takes no more effect. Those failing the save, must make a Will save at the same DC on the casters' next turn. Success means the victim has shrugged off the effects of the spell and no further effects occur. Failing the Will spell results in the target taking more damage equal to half the original amount of damage he took in the first round. This continues for a number of rounds equal to the caster's level or until the victim successfuly make his Will save.
A successful break enchantment spell-effect can remove the on-going damage.
Finger of Death: As above - 14d6 damage.
Disintigrate: 12d6 - but the damage is "acid" based - as it continues eating them away.
We've also tried adding in that you're "Slowed" while under the effect until you can shrug it off.... Other options than slowed can be used in its stead: Shaken for instance, or anything that give like a -2 to -4 penalty to rolls.....
Robert
Thanks! In any case, whatever Paizo does end up using eventually, I do hope it is not just the boring hit point damage that is currently in Alpha 3.
BTW: Great idea on the Poison spell - it would both get rid of the similarities with death spells/effects and give extra flavor and utility to the Poison spell.
I have to agree with Kalyth. Whereas damage over time spells certainly do have their place and you have worked out an interesting system for particularly deadly damage over time effects without making them overwhelming against low level characters, it just doesn't fit 'Death Effects' thematically.
|
|
I have to agree with Kalyth. Whereas damage over time spells certainly do have their place and you have worked out an interesting system for particularly deadly damage over time effects without making them overwhelming against low level characters, it just doesn't fit 'Death Effects' thematically.
Yeah, I tend to agree with that too. I think damage over time would seldom result in actual death from the death effect ... too easy to apply healing spells every round. But as was said previously, it is a good suggestion for some of the more "curse" type spells.
In fact, I could see many effects that instantly remove living creatures from combat doing ability damage or drain. Feeblemind could deal Int drain. Flesh to stone could deal Dex damage, and you turn to stone if your Dex drops to 0. Insanity could deal Wis drain, but you go insane instead of comatose if your Wis drops to 0. Stuff like that.
These are all freakin' AWESOME. They could scale with caster level, and we could even have a meaningful "save for half," in that case. Consider me a BIG fan of this. And of death spells dealing Con damage and/or drain. Brilliant stuff, all of it.
I must ask, why change the save or die spells at all?
I do not understand it either
I think it comes down to Save or Die effects either trivializing encounters when in the players hands and ruining the fun with one bad die roll when used against the players.I must ask, why change the save or die spells at all?I do not understand it either
But this ins’t true. I have been a DM for ten years (and a player for fifteen)and I've never had problems with SoD spells. Sometimes they work. Sometimes not. They don’t trivialising encounters.
For PCs, I use fate points... they allow to repeat a bad roll (death save or critical hit, massive damage is a problem for PC survival, too)
I have been a DM for ten years (and a player for fifteen)and I've never had problems with SoD spells. For PCs, I use fate points...
When I use Action Points, I have no problem with them either. But for the more mainstream audience, it'd be nice to make it so that hero points/action points/fate points could go back to being optional, instead of assumed. So a mechanic whereby ability damage/drian can potentially lead to permanently debilitating conditions or death, rather that a simple die roll inflicting them or not inflicting them through pure luck, would be an excellent thing for the core rules. Straight hp damage (as in Alpha 3) tries, but fails to accomplish that.
|
|
But this ins’t true. I have been a DM for ten years (and a player for fifteen)and I've never had problems with SoD spells. Sometimes they work. Sometimes not. They don’t trivialising encounters.For PCs, I use fate points... they allow to repeat a bad roll (death save or critical hit, massive damage is a problem for PC survival, too)
Ah there you go! What you're saying is that they dont trivialize because you take extra measures to ensure that they dont!
"Fate Points" or whatever other fancy name that someone comes up with is NOT part of the SRD and not part of the Pathfinder rules.
If you're arguement is that we can change S.O.D spells by instituting fate points, then you're still lobbying for a change to the spells - albeit indirectly.
Ultimately, whether we add fate points as canon to the system to lessen the impact of such spells, or change the spells to where the notion of Fate Points are no longer truly necessary, the end result is still the same.
Its not really a valid point to indicate that something never really gives you a problem and in the same breath indicate that you have a house to make that true.
Personlly, I dont use fate/action/hero points, and I feel that the Save or Die spells are indeed game-breakers and fun-takers, and welcome a slight tweak to them - even if they still kill you after two failed saves instead of one. Diminishing the chance of a character ending an important encounter so unceremoniously or a DM from ending a player's involvement for the next 6 hours all by a result of a single die roll is a step in the right direction IMO. The latter concern is why action points were instituted in the first place.
Robert
Fate points don’t fix SoD spells. They improve PCs survival. They give a second chance with critical hits, massive damage, SoD spells, etc.
Fate points aren’t core, but SoD spells they are. Why remove them? Is not it better to add something? SoD spells have been there since the beginning of D&D. Many people love them.
Pathfinder is not finished. Even things can be added. No matter that does not yet exist in the system.
|
|
Fate points don’t fix SoD spells. They improve PCs survival. They give a second chance with critical hits, massive damage, SoD spells, etc.
Fate points aren’t core, but SoD spells they are. Why remove them? Is not it better to add something? SoD spells have been there since the beginning of D&D. Many people love them.
Pathfinder is not finished. Even things can be added. No matter that does not yet exist in the system.
Not everyone loves fate points. And you're right ... they give a second chance against numerous effects, not just SoDs. Why force people to use a wide-ranging new rule when it's possible to adjust SoDs to retain their flavor and (most) of their danger?
The Paizo guys already tried tweaking SoDs in the Alpha 3 with straight-up hit point damage; we are simply trying to come up with other alternatives, since that didn't seem to capture the right "feel" of them IMO.
Why not just make save-or-die spells reduce you to -9 HP (and likely to die next round) instead of -10 HP? That gives you a 1 round buffer where someone might be able to stabilize you or bring you back, but otherwise is a death sentence.
|
|
Fate points don’t fix SoD spells. They improve PCs survival. They give a second chance with critical hits, massive damage, SoD spells, etc.
Fate points aren’t core, but SoD spells they are. Why remove them? Is not it better to add something?
We are trying to add something; we're trying to add a little bit of discretion on the spells that instantly kill and ruin the fun for a lot of games.
Instead of fate points, call it discretionary points.
Robert
Not everyone loves fate points. And you're right ... they give a second chance against numerous effects, not just SoDs. Why force people to use a wide-ranging new rule when it's possible to adjust SoDs to retain their flavor and (most) of their danger?
The Paizo guys already tried tweaking SoDs in the Alpha 3 with straight-up hit point damage; we are simply trying to come up with other alternatives, since that didn't seem to capture the right "feel" of them IMO.
Because the problem of high levels are not SoD spells, is the high mortality of the PCs. I have killed many more PCs with melee attacks than with SoD spells. And the almost universal complaint about the high levels is none other than the high mortality of the PCs... nerf SoD spells does not solve the high mortality of the PCs, the ‘fate points’ they do.
I use fate points because they reduce the mortality of the characters but maintain a certain risk. The risk is necessary, is exciting.
Here is my view on it.
I like the concept of Save or Die/Death effects. Nothing represents an evil sorcerer better than looking at the King's son and speaking one word and the poor kid kills over. It has class and is a great tool for a good story. How ever in the wrong scenes at the wrong time it totally ruins the story.
Darth Vader was awesome character, choaking people with the force left and right really gave him an feeling of being a villian. However notice that he never did this to Luke or Han? To just kill those character right off would have totally ruined the story. But him using it on extras was awsome.
Death effects are great thematically for minions an minor NPC and add a great deal of character to the game. But running up on the evil baron that the Characters have been chasing down and dealing with over the a year long or more game and just going "Die" and he kills over is a bit anti-climactic. If Luke had just walked into the Death Star and looked at the Emperor and he killed over the movie would have kind of sucked really. I know I would have been asking for my money back. Likewise if the Emporer just held out his hand and Luke dropped dead...well again lame story twist there.
Death/Save or Die effects are very cool and have a place in every game I run and play in but that place needs to be carefully maintained or the story suffers and the fun dies along with the PC/NPC.
Yes, this is true. SoD spells are a great resource for the master, but they must be used with caution. When I use those spells I do so with some preparation. The characters know what they face, and can be prepared for it. The risk of death makes it very exciting these encounters, but I do not use SoD spells as who distributed sweets.
In the same way I do not mind that sometimes the PCs solve an encounter with a spell. Sometimes SoD spells work. Sometimes not. And when an encounter is really important, I make sure they can not reduce my evil NPC with a single spell (or lucky melee attack), is not so difficult to properly prepare the important scenes. If after that I made them suffer a bit, PCs kill my NPC with a single spell or lucky attack... Well done!
We are trying to add something; we're trying to add a little bit of discretion on the spells that instantly kill and ruin the fun for a lot of games.
Instead of fate points, call it discretionary points.
Robert
I have been a DM for ten years (and a player for fifteen) and I've never had problems with SoD spells. I like SoD spells.
Why not just make save-or-die spells reduce you to -9 HP (and likely to die next round) instead of -10 HP? That gives you a 1 round buffer where someone might be able to stabilize you or bring you back, but otherwise is a death sentence.
Not a bad idea ;)
One thing in favor of Con damage for finger of death is what happens if you survive, not just if you die. In 3.5e, you take a bit of damage; but not enough to slow you down, and nothing a cure wounds spell won't fix. So it's basically "die or almost no effect." In the A3, you take damage, period. So there's really no difference between a death spell and a big sword.
Dealing Con damage emphasizes that the victim just narrowly escaped some horrible death, and he's still realing a bit from his very life force nearly being snuffed out. The mechanics support the "deadly" nature of the magic a lot better than the current ones do.
|
|
One thing in favor of Con damage for finger of death is what happens if you survive, not just if you die. In 3.5e, you take a bit of damage; but not enough to slow you down, and nothing a cure wounds spell won't fix. So it's basically "die or almost no effect." In the A3, you take damage, period. So there's really no difference between a death spell and a big sword.
Dealing Con damage emphasizes that the victim just narrowly escaped some horrible death, and he's still realing a bit from his very life force nearly being snuffed out. The mechanics support the "deadly" nature of the magic a lot better than the current ones do.
What I'm doing for my new campaign rewrite (slated to kick off in Jan 09 with PF Beta rules as a backdrop) is not something I am suggesting Paizo does as it requires a lot of refiguring, but it's working for us:
I've added a new condition called "Comatose" which follow "dying" but preceeds "death".
Essentially while Comatose characters are allowed saving throws to "snap out of the coma" and become "dying" again.
While in a coma, they cannot be healed by "Cure" spells, but a difficult Heal skill check can revive the PC to "Dying". I replaced Raise Dead spell with Raise Comatose so that is the only magic that can restore it - other than Heal, or Ressurection.
Character make progressively harder saving throws every round that they fail. Comrades have a number of rounds equal to the comatose's character level to revive the person. If they are not revived by Raise Comatose, a Heal Skill check, or a successful Save, in that time, he dies.
So with that in mind, I have changed most of the S.O.D. spells to deal damage in the first round - and if the save in the first round fails, the second round they take half the amount of damage again that they took in the first round, and get another save. If they make it - nothing else befalls them; If they fail - they lose a number of CON points equal to the level of the spell, and fall Comatose. (the loss of the CON makes the save to revive from Comatose even harder).
All of this was done with my new mentality in mind that I want death to still be a possibility, but I didn't want it to be as likely. The new condition still will usually keep one out of that combat (only) if one falls into that condition, but doesn't have the long-lasting effects of needing an expensive diamond to raise - xp loss, and missing out on a portion of the game. Half of my table drives more than an hour to come play every other week - it just doesn't seem right to have to spend that kind of time and gas and show that kind of loyalty to a game, only to see them sit and do nothing for 4 or 5 hours while they're waiting to be resurrected.
I had to rework alot of the game mechanics, and conditions etc to make all of this work - we've been playtesting all of my campaign rules rewrites along with the Alpha, so were gettin some good analysis of it and a chance to re-work it along if something isn't right. So far, the players like the changes.
Robert
In the A3, you take damage, period. So there's really no difference between a death spell and a big sword.
Indeed, this is precisely why I am not so keen on the A3 system and started this thread in the first place. Constitution damage alleviates this problem.
Indeed, this is precisely why I am not so keen on the A3 system and started this thread in the first place. Constitution damage alleviates this problem.
Indeed it does. I've already houseruled it into my game, along with the Int drain for feeblemind, Wis drain for insanity, Dex damage for flesh to stone, etc. that Epic Meepo suggested. We'll see how they work in playtesting.
I have to add my support to the ability drain/damage argument. I hated SoD's the way they were, this (in my mind) perfectly fixes it.
While I love the idea of ability damage, I think that the flat hit-point damage is not understood here.
The hit-point fix isn't there so that SoD spells can be heavy damage-dealers. It is to stop the silliness that is slaying a great wyrm dragon with a single death spell just because it rolled a 1 (or because you messed with the dragon's saves and boosted the DC of the death spell). Big baddies should not be swatted like minions.
While mechanically boring, the damage caps on SoD spells mean that the spells really just work like the old ones, except that creatures with a huge stack of hit-points don't go down in a single spell.
All that said, I think that the CON solution is top-notch, as it is scary, quite deadly, but still allows big baddies with huge CON to survive a round or two.
I think most of us understand why Death Effects were changed to their current form. It's just that we think there are better ways of accomplishing a similar aim yet avoiding making the spells boring.
The point being, I don't think the Con damage dice should increase with spell level, because it would substantially increase the difference in power between SoD spells of different levels
Maybe scale the damage by caster level only, but vary the cap based on spell level? Say for the sake of argument you went with 2d6 + 1/caster level. A 5th level spell could have a +10 max, +15 for a 7th level spell, +20 for a 9th level spell, something like that.
|
|
For the same reasons I'm not happy about lower levels being Con damage and higher levels being Con drain; I think they should all do the same type, although I'm not sure yet which I think it should be.
Thinking about it a bit, the old SoD's would require a raise dead at a minimum to bring the character back (5th level spell). If we made the spells now do CON damage, characters could use a few castings of lesser restoration, a 2nd level spell, to repair the damage. On the other hand, CON drain would require restoration at a minimum, a 4th level spell. From that standpoint, I think they should probably all do CON drain, rather than damage.
Roman wrote:
I would suggest the following mechanics for the Death Effects/Spells as Constitution damage/drain idea:5th level death effects/spells do Constitution damage equal to 1d6 + ½ caster level.
6th level death effects/spells do Constitution damage equal to 2d6 + ½ caster level.
7th level death effects/spells do Constitution damage equal to 3d6 + ½ caster level.
8th level death effects/spells cause Constitution drain equal to 3d6 + ½ caster level.
9th level death effects/spells cause mass Constitution drain equal to 3d6 + ½ caster level.Upon a successful fortitude save by the target, death effects/spells do hit point damage instead of Constitution damage.
Note 1: 8th level death effects/spells could possibly be allowed to do mass Constitution damage instead of single target Constitution drain.
Note 2: The + ½ caster level term could be replaced with the spell level of the spell to get rid of scaling if so desired, but ½ caster level is probably preferable.I've been thinking about this and I've come to the conclusion that the Con damage dice increasing with spell level this way isn't balanced. Here's why;
1) The SoD spells are already different levels, and they all have the same effect on a failed save in 3.5 (ie, Death). The lower level spells are already weaker in other ways; Finger of Death is higher level than Slay Living because SL requires a melee touch attack (they're otherwise virtually identical); Implosion and Wail of the Banshee are also very similar to FoD (except that they don't have a partial effect on a failed save) but affect multiple targets, so are higher level; Phantasmal Killer is very like FoD but allows a Will save in addition to the Fortitude save and so is lower level; and so on. The point being, I don't think the Con damage dice should increase with spell level, because it would substantially increase the difference in power between SoD spells of different levels, when the differences between them are great enough already to account for their relative spell levels.
For the same reasons I'm not happy about lower levels being Con damage and higher levels being Con drain; I think they should all do the same type, although I'm not sure yet which I think it should be.
2) The 5th level spells as written are just too weak to be called save-or-die. A 9th-level Cleric casting Slay Living does only 7.5 Con damage on average; not even enough to kill an average 1st-level Commoner. Even if the Cleric rolls a 6, the Con damage is only 10; still only a 50% chance of killing said Commoner.
My suggestion is to either:
Have the Con damage be a fixed amount + a fixed number of dice, or let Con damage dice be the same at all levels, but let the caster level play a part. Possible schemes could be;
a) 10 + 3d6 (Maximised Slay Living suddenly becomes very deadly!)
b) 10 + 1/2 caster level + 2d4*
c) caster level + 2d4*
*This could be increased to 2d6 if desired, but 2d4 seemed more balanced to me, as well as limiting the power of Maximise Spell
a) gives minimum 13, average 20.5, maximum 28 at all caster levels
b) gives min 16, av 19, max 22 at CL9 and min 22, av 25, max 28 at CL20
c) gives min 11, av 14, max 17 at CL9 and min 22, av 25, max 28 at CL20
My preference would be for b) or c), since while I don't agree with the damage increasing by spell level, increasing by caster level makes sense to me; after all, most other attack spells do. Also, the numbers retain a "very dangerous, but not necessarily automatic death unless you roll really high on the Con damage" feel as you increase in levels. I'm not sure which one I prefer yet, though.
What do you guys think?
I've been thinking about this and I've come to the conclusion that the Con damage dice increasing with spell level this way isn't balanced. Here's why;
1) The SoD spells are already different levels, and they all have the same effect on a failed save in 3.5 (ie, Death). The lower level spells are already weaker in other ways; Finger of Death is higher level than Slay Living because SL requires a melee touch attack (they're otherwise virtually identical); Implosion and Wail of the Banshee are also very similar to FoD (except that they don't have a partial effect on a failed save) but affect multiple targets, so are higher level; Phantasmal Killer is very like FoD but allows a Will save in addition to the Fortitude save and so is lower level; and so on. The point being, I don't think the Con damage dice should increase with spell level, because it would substantially increase the difference in power between SoD spells of different levels, when the differences between them are great enough already to account for their relative spell levels.For the same reasons I'm not happy about lower levels being Con damage and higher levels being Con drain; I think they should all do the same type, although I'm not sure yet which I think it should be.
2) The 5th level spells as written are just too weak to be called save-or-die. A 9th-level Cleric casting Slay Living does only 7.5 Con damage on average; not even enough to kill an average 1st-level Commoner. Even if the Cleric rolls a 6, the Con damage is only 10; still only a 50% chance of killing said Commoner.
My suggestion is to either:
Have the Con damage be a fixed amount + a fixed number of dice, or let Con damage dice be the same at all levels, but let the caster level play a part. Possible schemes could be;
a) 10 + 3d6 (Maximised Slay Living suddenly becomes very deadly!)
b) 10 + 1/2 caster level + 2d4*
c) caster level + 2d4*
*This could be increased to 2d6 if desired, but 2d4 seemed more balanced to me, as well as limiting the power of Maximise Spell
a) gives minimum 13, average 20.5, maximum 28 at all caster levels
b) gives min 16, av 19, max 22 at CL9 and min 22, av 25, max 28 at CL20
c) gives min 11, av 14, max 17 at CL9 and min 22, av 25, max 28 at CL20
My preference would be for b) or c), since while I don't agree with the damage increasing by spell level, increasing by caster level makes sense to me; after all, most other attack spells do. Also, the numbers retain a "very dangerous, but not necessarily automatic death unless you roll really high on the Con damage" feel as you increase in levels. I'm not sure which one I prefer yet, though.
What do you guys think?
1) Well, I think the difference between SoD death effect of different levels was not large enough, but then again, it couldn’t have been – death was a death. Since death is not automatic now, we can rectify that and introduce some differentiation. I think this is a feature rather than a mistake. It just doesn’t make sense to me that the spells of different levels should be essentially mechanically identical apart from the save DC.
2) The average damage of even the weakes SoD spell at the lowest possible caster level does kill an average commoner. The commoner’s Constitution will indeed decrease by only 7.5, but this automatically causes a mean loss of 3.75 hit points, which means that an average commoner with 2.5 hit points will die anyway.
This also provides an incentive for casters to hold back their save or die spells for a bit, as it is easier to slay an injured foe in this manner.
That said, the idea of capping caster level boni to constitution damage/drain does make some sense. It would fit right along with the damage caps imposed on normal damage depending on spell level.
|
|
I think I still prefer the idea of SoD spell "damage" increasing with spell level, rather than a set amount. I see the reasoning behind both, and in the end, I don't think it's unbalancing for a 9th level death effect to do significantly more overall damage than a 5th, in addition to not needing a touch attack (or affecting more targets, etc). I do agree with capping the caster level bonuses, though; and also agree that they should all do drain (per my last post).
I would suggest the following mechanics for the Death Effects/Spells as Constitution damage/drain idea:
5th level death effects/spells do Constitution damage equal to 1d6 + ½ caster level.
6th level death effects/spells do Constitution damage equal to 2d6 + ½ caster level.
7th level death effects/spells do Constitution damage equal to 3d6 + ½ caster level.
8th level death effects/spells cause Constitution drain equal to 3d6 + ½ caster level.
9th level death effects/spells cause mass Constitution drain equal to 3d6 + ½ caster level.Upon a successful fortitude save by the target, death effects/spells do hit point damage instead of Constitution damage.
Note 1: 8th level death effects/spells could possibly be allowed to do mass Constitution damage instead of single target Constitution drain.
Note 2: The + ½ caster level term could be replaced with the spell level of the spell to get rid of scaling if so desired, but ½ caster level is probably preferable.
I wish I'd read this forum before - this is really good stuff here. Save or likely die, you can roll the effect right away without waiting for the save (or at least have the dice ready).. very good! (Still reading down the rest of the posts for the record)
One really good thing about this one - rather equivalent to the damage currently in place:
Currently do 7*level damage (average). 1d6 + 1/2 level in con damage ~= (2 + 1/4 level) * HitDice to the target. I charted it out and when Caster level = HitDice, this does a bit less damage at 9th, about -25, very slowly scaling down no difference at 20th.
This means your NPC's, outsiders, etc., are affected a bit less than your huge hulking high HD creatures (the more HD, the more affected of course).
EDIT: After reading the rest I'm more in agreement that the dice don't need to increase with spell level, and also forgot to include that increase in my calculations. I'd go with 2d6 + 1/2 caster level. + Full caster level is incredibly deadly - 20.5 average at 9th level? I know plenty of 20th level characters who don't have 20 Con, or more particularly don't have an *average* of 10 hit points per level (the drop 20 con damage would do).
This would make it -11 damage (vs. current 2d6/level) at 9th, dropping to 0 at 14th level.
Whatever the final numbers, I'm going with save for half. Save for hp damage might as well be "save for no effect."