You are automatically assuming because the enemy is not dead yet, the Fighter can do something to it. Well, he's welcome to risk himself for no reason since it is already as good as dead. Maybe he can attack it. Maybe he's unable to do anything to it because he doesn't have the right tool for the job, whatever. Which means the Wizard is doing him a favor.
Now, a Hydra is a simple enough opponent the Fighter just might be able to. First though, he gets to take a bunch of AoOs to the face before he can even attack it. Maybe nothing happens... Maybe he takes 140 damage or more. I've seen CR 6 Hydras tear apart level 15 melees in exactly this way.
Your assumption is flawed in that it assumes he can do things he may or may not be able to and that it is 'fun' to burn resources for no reason (which means later enemies get to kill you easily).
Also, 4.0 fails because it makes everything about damage... except it jacks enemy HP through the roof, even more than in 3.5 while damage is much less. This is otherwise known as Padded Sumo combat.
You think "Puf you are dead" is not fun. I do not. I think that if used willy-nilly and hap-hazardly sure it can be a very un-fun. But anything taken or used out of control can be un-fun. I think "Puf you are dead" can be great fun. I remember playing one game where the entire group spent over an hour discussing who was going to go into a chamber with a beholder in it first. The roleplaying was great. Everyone was like. "I dont want to die!" It was great roleplaying and much fun. And sadly yes the poor fighter bit it as he entered the room. Once we got him resurrected he never let us forget it.
Finger of Death needs to have a chance to kill a target instantly or just remove it from the game. If you cant do that then its not Finger of Death.
As to why I think Death Effects (not to be confused with Save or Die) should work instantly please read following....
"The evil wizard raised his hand and pointed it at the young princess. He spoke a single word as shadows seemed to ripple around him. The princess gasps and then her lifeless body drop to the floor. The shadows quickly enveloped the wizard and he was gone. Everyone was stunned with horror. She was dead before anyone could act. Lir, the priest, ran forward and knelt next to her body. He call upon his faith and all of his devotion pleading with his god to heal the child he had help raise. But alas she was gone. Her life snuffed like a fragile candle flame. The princess was dead."
With your suggestion this scene could NEVER happen. This scene should be possible. Killing with a word or a pointed finger is a classic power of the evil wizard. Please dont take that away from those of us that want to be able to create dramatic stories.
Why is it not Finger of Death? What in the name says that you need to die instantly? I think it is just because you are used to it that way and like most people are resistant to change. Face, you do not have a real reason behind it.
As for your example, it can be done like this as well: "The evil wizard raised his hand and pointed it at the young princess. He spoke a single word as shadows seemed to ripple around him. The princess gasps and then drops to the floor while her life force weakens by the second. The shadows quickly envelop the wizard and he laughs evilly just before he disappears. Everyone is stunned with horror. She was dying right before their eyes and nobody could help her. Lir, the priest, ran forward and knelt next to her body just as the last of her breath was leaving her body. He calls upon his faith and all of his devotion pleading with his god to heal the child he had help raise. But alas his devotion is not enough and she is gone. Her life snuffed like a fragile candle flame. The princess was dead."
I think it is just because you are used to it that way and like most people are resistant to change. Face, you do not have a real reason behind it.I would think this is a fair comment except:
1) As far as I can see, you have not shown that death-over-time is mechanically superior to other solutions proposed, such as Con drain or increased casting time. It seems to me at best equally good.
2) I also see no reason why death-over-time is flavourally superior to instant-death, and most people seem to prefer the latter.
So to my mind, it is in fact you who does not have a real reason why your change should be the one adopted; if YOU prefer it, fair enough, but please don't insult the rest of us who prefer other solutions by claiming it's just because we're "resistant to change".
My solution is not flavorfully superior, it is equal. But as it has been discussed and I think agreed by most people, SoD ruin the game for other players (non-spellcasters). So my solution is mechanically superior.
The only question remains is if it is better then other SoD solutions.
Since you state that I have not proven that it is better, I agree. Only because I spent valuable time just to state that some solution is needed (and I think mine is the one). So now let me put my thoughts why I think mine is better. I will do so by saying why I think others are worse.
1. Con damage. I do not like this because this creates problems long term. Also it introduces a mechanic that is needlessly complicated when compared to HP loss or damage. Because you need to calculate your currect Con and max hp each round. And as it has been stated before, it reduced your Fort save and makes you more vulnerable to future attacks.
2. HP Damage. This is a good solution (and PF team also thinks this since they decided to use it), but it is worse then mine because it does not guarantee a kill. It trully turns a Save or Die spell into Save or Damage, which has no meaning. Also, you can save from effects of my version but against this one you can save even easier (Temporary HP, and any kind of healing spells)
------------------------------------------------
My proposed rule change is a blend of point 2. and 3.5e SoD system. You also lose HP but if you do not get any help you will certainly die in the end.
I proposed SoD spells to last for 4 rounds until the target dies but that can be reduced to 3 or 2 rounds if people thinks that 4 rounds is really too long.
Also I proposed that spells like Dispel Magic and Heal (or Greater Restoration) can remove part of the effect of SoD (one removes the effect but not damage taken, and the other removes damage taken SO FAR but not the damage that will be taken in upcoming rounds until the effect expires). This makes SoD spells something that you can react during combat, not just something you need to prepare in advance. Also this will let DMs use this spells on player regularly without feeling like they are overkilling them or stopping the adventure. This becomes a combat option.
Why couldnt Lir save her? If he cant save her then what is your solution doing? What is the effect of your solution? I thought your solution was to give Lir a chance to save the princess? I thought you were posing your solution so that people would have a chance to be saved before they died? If the princess is slowly dying and nothing can be done to save her and she cant do anything then what is the point of your solution over instant death?Instantaneous death effects are a staple power of evil wizards. I dont want them to be removed. Some people have a problem with them I dont for the most part. If they HAVE to change I can live with it but I dont want them to be replaced with Damage over Time (or Death over time) effects or even just straight direct damage.
So Thematics is not a good enough reason?
Does this seem logical to you?
How about we remove fire spells from the game because the rules for things catching on fire are clunky and people dont like them. I mean people can still kill things with cold and lightning so no big deal. But we like fire. Why take fire away? Nothing about the class wizard says they have to be able to hurl fire. Your just used to wizards using fire you have no real reason other than you are resistant to change. (hope that makes the point)
As I have said many times Damage over time effects (or death over time effects) are very good story/game mechanics and have a place in the game and are also great for creating dramatic scenes. HOWEVER I do not want to see them replace instantaneous death effects. Which are also very good story/game mechanics and have a place in the game.
I personally take offense to you stating that I have no reason for my arguement when the only reason you can provide for yours is personal preference. Basically this all boils down to personal preference. Why is my personal preference any less of a reason than yours?
If you are not going to use facts and logic in this discussion there is not point in going on. Oh, and also please stop lying.
I gave a really good reason (one that you can read about on this board and problably since 3.0e came out on other boards), and that is: More fun to non-spellcasters in combat at high levels.SoD steal fun from others!!
And your fire example is so ridiculous I will not even bother replying to it. It is a waste of my time. When you come up with a better example, please stop by so we can continue this discussion (if you want to finally start making points).
You're still assuming all the others are capable of doing something to the BBEG. Haven't we been over that?
Lesser Restoration.
|
The only question remains is if it is better then other SoD solutions.
Since you state that I have not proven that it is better, I agree. Only because I spent valuable time just to state that some solution is needed (and I think mine is the one). So now let me put my thoughts why I think mine is better. I will do so by saying why I think others are worse.
1. Con damage. I do not like this because this creates problems long term. Also it introduces a mechanic that is needlessly complicated when compared to HP loss or damage. Because you need to calculate your currect Con and max hp each round. And as it has been stated before, it reduced your Fort save and makes you more vulnerable to future attacks.2. HP Damage. This is a good solution (and PF team also thinks this since they decided to use it), but it is worse then mine because it does not guarantee a kill. It trully turns a Save or Die spell into Save or Damage, which has no meaning. Also, you...
Let me restate my position, please. I think if you evaluate it carefully, you'll agree that it accomplishes the intent of your option (not killing a character immediately) while still allowing for the possibility of 'instant death'.
A save or die effect deals Con Damage on a failed save, and HP damage on a successful save.
This allows the chance that a Save or Die will cause 'Instant Death', but doesn't guarantee it. The toughest characters are least likely to be killed outright. A character that fails the save and survives will be greatly weakened and more vulnerable to another casting of such a spell (or a hit point damaging spell) making retreat and escape high priorities). Thus even surviving the death effect (on a failed save) makes the spell highly effective.
In addition, if the spell only does hit point damage, the opponent suffers no penalties until they drop into the negatives. A creature struck by a death effect with many hit points has little to fear from such a spell.
If the opponent succeeds on their save and take only hit point damage, they are not greatly weakened, and they are no more vulnerable to additional save-or-die spells than they were before the first spell.
This helps keep the flavor and power of save-or-die without making them so 'game-ending'. A character that fails the save and takes 15 Con Damage (with a 16 Con) is still 'in the game' but not 'in the fight'.
Some spells could deal Con Damage and others could deal Con Drain. The important point is that the Con effect is limited to a failed save, not a passed save, and only direct hit point damage is used on a passed save.
This also closely mimics the 3.5 rules (fail=die, pass=3d6 damage).
Thoughts?
Let me restate my position, please. I think if you evaluate it carefully, you'll agree that it accomplishes the intent of your option (not killing a character immediately) while still allowing for the possibility of 'instant death'.
A save or die effect deals Con Damage on a failed save, and HP damage on a successful save.
This allows the chance that a Save or Die will cause 'Instant Death', but doesn't guarantee it. The toughest characters are least likely to be killed outright. A character that fails the save and survives will be greatly weakened and more vulnerable to another casting of such a spell (or a hit point damaging spell) making retreat and escape high priorities). Thus even surviving the death effect (on a failed save) makes the spell highly effective.
In addition, if the spell only does hit point damage, the opponent suffers no penalties until they drop into the negatives. A creature struck by a death effect with many hit points has little to fear from such a spell.
If the opponent succeeds on their save and take only hit point damage, they are not greatly weakened, and they are no more vulnerable to additional save-or-die spells than they were before the first spell.
This helps keep the flavor and power of save-or-die without making them so 'game-ending'. A character that fails the save and takes 15 Con Damage (with a 16 Con) is still 'in the game' but not 'in the fight'.
Some spells could deal Con Damage and others could deal Con Drain. The important point is that the Con effect is limited to a failed save, not a passed save, and only direct hit point damage is used on a passed save.
This also closely mimics the 3.5 rules (fail=die, pass=3d6 damage).
I heartily approve of this option. Con damage is very scary, but obviously not as scary as instant death. And incidentally, this has made me realize that there are currently very few offensive spells that do ability damage, which I find a bit odd. Yes, it's a bit of a pain to recalculate one's stats due to ability damage/drain, but once you get used to it, it's an underused mechanic that could be quite handy in the creation of all kinds of frightening but not necessarily game-ending effects. And I'll take a little clunkiness in order to get away from the blandness of plain HP damage. (And since almost every player I know already loves Ray of Enfeeblement, the point may be a bit moot.)
The option other than Con damage that occurs to me is a large number of negative levels (which are a bit easier to deal with, bookkeeping-wise). The problem there, though, is that 2d6 negative levels (for example) is much more dangerous to a 10th-level character than a 17th-level character, so it wouldn't mimic the possibility of instant death quite as well as Con damage, since Constitution and other ability scores tend not to increase so steadily. This could be mitigated by making the number of negative levels scale with the caster's level, but despite all that, I think I prefer Con damage.
So we've got Con damage covering the instant-death spells, and Dex damage/drain sounds like a fine choice for Flesh to Stone, as do Int and Wisdom for Feeblemind and the insanity effects, respectively.
Do we still want to try this with other "save or suck" spells such as charm and compulsion effects? I understand the reasoning behind Cha damage as the replacement for these, but it's not as clear and direct as the above examples. When you almost get dominated, your sorcerer spells and Bluff checks get worse? That could make sense in an odd way, but I'm not wild about it. What do others think?
|
|
DeadDMWalking/ Adam Howat:
I think SoD spells all need to...
And it cut off.
I agree that many death effects should use Con Drain. However, I don't think it is unreasonable to have some 'lesser' death effects do Con Damage. If the damage is sufficiently high, you die. If it isn't, you can be healed quickly.
Basically, it is two different flavors. Drain is much scarier since it is harder to restore during the fight. If you want the effect to be something that can be ended during the fight, Con Damage is a better choice.
Just off hand, I would say 'Finger of Death' might do Drain, while 'Destruction' might do Damage. But whether one or the other is used is easily decided once that is agreed as the 'general rule'.
I read in detail the Con drain/damage suggestion and I find it even worse now.
Why:
1. Average/normal/commoner person has a chance to survive after a failed save???!?!?!?!?
This is the reason I hate 3e poison effects, they do not kill anyone, even commoners!! People die from poison in RL much more often then in D&D.
2. Spell still does not guarantee a kill on a failed save on monsters and NPCs and that is the biggest difference from the traditional SoD.
3. If it kills the enemy, it still kills it in one round, preventing other party member from being a part of the fight.
4. I makes DMs and players do needless bookkeeping that is more complicated then just HP damage or loss of portion of Max HP per round.
5. I lowers the Fort save against all other effects. So a person survives the Death effect and now can be more easily Blinded?! Or Stunned, or poisoned. As far as I know Finger of Death attacks your Soul, not your body, why should it reduce your resistance to poisons and diseases in the process?
I could see this as a part of Disentigrate or Destruction effects, but not Finger of Death.
|
|
I read in detail the Con drain/damage suggestion and I find it even worse now.
Why:
1. Average/normal/commoner person has a chance to survive after a failed save???!?!?!?!?
This is the reason I hate 3e poison effects, they do not kill anyone, even commoners!! People die from poison in RL much more often then in D&D.
I have not specifified a value for the Con drain. While one person has suggested 3d6 +1/2 caster level, I believe that is too much. That pretty much guarantees death to any humanoid (unless the roll is really bad). But the idea here is that while rarely a commoner could survive on a failed save, they are much weaker than they were. And there is a chance that the PCs (who have to make these saves as well) will survive - and since they likely have better ability scores than the common person, there is a better chance that the heroes will survive a failed save. Since one of the big problems with Save-or-Die is that you are out of the game for a long time, relatively speaking, on a failed save... and that is never fun for the players. A chance of death makes the game interesting. At high level SoD becomes a guarantee of death requiring a resurrection or some other 'countering' agent, which at high levels is an inconvenience and involves a section of the game being boring.
If there is no chance of surviving on a failed save, then the problem with dead PCs remains. However, if the damage is sufficiency severe there are several reasons why it remains more effective than poison.
1) It is instantaneous, no making another save 1 minute later.
2) The amount of damage can scale.
3) Con Damage or Con Drain reduces the hit point total significantly. A character that goes from a 10 Con to a 1 Con loses 5 hp per level. There are characters that will likely die outright from the HP damage. If not, they are easily killed by any other spell, like an Area of Effect or other HP damaging spell.
2. Spell still does not guarantee a kill on a failed save on monsters and NPCs and that is the biggest difference from the traditional SoD.
I don't know about you, but one of the things that I really like about 3.5 is that the monsters and NPCs use the same rules as the PCs. If we give the PCs a chance to survive, we should give the NPCs a chance to survive. The reason that these spells are often called 'save or suck' is that a failed save can make the game extremely dull for a player for 1-4 hours or so, depending on how quickly the PCs can marshall the resources to have that character resurrected or the player to make a new character. I'm quite willing to allow the chance that an NPC survives on a failed save in a greatly weakened state to also allow a chance for the player to stay in the game.
3. If it kills the enemy, it still kills it in one round, preventing other party member from being a part of the fight.
You keep bringing up this point, though I thought it was quite clearly refuted earlier. If the BBEG is subject to death in 2 rounds, the only reason other characters will attack it is to prevent it from taking any further actions. So, if the Fighter kills it outright on his action he may feel good, but the wizard wasted the spell (since it was unnecessary). If the fighter does hit the BBEG and doesn't kill him, and it dies next round, it was a wasted action.
I don't know about your players, but mine don't enjoy beating on someone they already know is 'dead'. But what's fun to you isn't wrong, its just that my group doesn't share that. So, you're right. It could kill an enemy in one round. That keeps the flavor of Save-or-Die while still offering a chance.
4. I makes DMs and players do needless bookkeeping that is more complicated then just HP damage or loss of portion of Max HP per round.
This is a strawman. There are really only two possibilities with this: the character takes enough Con Damage (drain) to die outright. There is no bookkeeping. The character doesn't take enough Con Damage to die outright. They recalculate their remaining hit points (just as if they had taken poison damage, or any other ability score penalty). They will not recalculate each round and another failed save (highly likely with the reduced Con) will result in death.
5. I lowers the Fort save against all other effects. So a person survives the Death effect and now can be more easily Blinded?! Or Stunned, or poisoned. As far as I know Finger of Death attacks your Soul, not your body, why should it reduce your resistance to poisons and diseases in the process?I could see this as a part of Disentigrate or Destruction effects, but not Finger of Death.
I would say that if you barely survive a death effect (meaning you pass the save but do not die outright) you are greatly weakened. Your 'strength of body' is spent 'staying alive'. While you are more vulnerable to blindness and other effects, you are also more vulnerable to a sword through the gut.
The SoD mechanic has a problem. If you fail your save you are out of the game. If the rule is changed so that if you fail the save you aren't out of the game, but instead are very close to death, I don't think you can complain about being subject to other debilitating effects. At least you're alive.
Again, this just makes it so that a PC MIGHT survive, not a guaranty that they will. However, it does make it easier if a DM wants to allow a PC to survive by fudging the numbers. If the wizard character uses spellcraft to identify the spell and the PCs have made one or more saves, they should know what the DC is. They also know that a natural 1 is an auto-fail. If the PC knows they failed their save, there isn't anything the DM can do without outright changing the rules on the fly to save that PC. Some DMs (right or wrong - I let the dice fall where they may) fudge things like damage for story purposes. They choose not to kill their players for story reasons (and the fun of everyone). This would let them use 'Save or Die' which is a fantasy staple without the worry that a single failed save will necessarily ruin the campaign.
While you are certainly free to disagree, I think there are advantages to some form of Constitution damage over hit point damage over several rounds. I also think there are spells that do that (Burning Blood, for instance) and that fails to keep the flavor of Save or Die.
Lesser Restoration.Your right Lesser Restoration would pretty much negate that depending on the 1d4 roll for each. The amount of con damage could be increased or decreased. It would still take an action to restore the con damage which could cost someone their turn during combat. Ok not a perfect solution but thought I would throw it out there.
...Why would they waste a combat round on Lesser Restoration? Wait 3 rounds. Combat will surely be over. That's almost as bad as using CLW in combat.
|
|
Assuming the Con damage were somewhere in the neighborhood of 1d6+Caster Level, an 11th level caster might do an average of 14 Con, which should equate to roughly -7 HP per Character Level of the opponent.
That's a lot. In addition, that is a -7 to Fort saves, making them very vulnerable to that spell or another save requiring a Fort save (like blindness). Not healing or escaping could very well lead to death (not instant, but pretty darn close).
Continuing a fight with a greatly reduced CON is not tactically sound. I don't think there is much to fear from Lesser Restoration if the spell does Con Damage, but it is true that damage is easier to remove than Drain. For the most part, Drain makes more sense for most spells (but leaving Con Damage as an alternative is no problem for me).
Perhaps a combo effect:
SoD removes 1/4 to 1/3 hp each round (or perhaps a fixed amount so weak creatures die quick, stronger creatures may linger a while). You get a save each round, if you make it the damage stops.
This still can make them quite deadly, but overcomes a single bad roll and/or allows others to intervene in a meaningful way to attempt to stop the spell (spells, items, abilities or whatnot).
|
|
Design Problem
With Save or Die effects in 3.5, if a PC fails a save, they are 'out of the game' for a relatively long period of time. Spells that 'snuff out the life force' begin before ready access to spells that restore a character to life. Abandoning a quest to raise a fallen companion is usually not fun for the surviving PCs, and is definitely not fun for the dead PC. The dead PC's player has nothing to do until he is restored to life.
Design Goals
1) Save or Die effects are dramatic - in a world where PCs are frequently reduced to negative hit points, the thought of a single roll of the dice determining life or death puts a lot of pressure on that moment. Maintaining that dramatic moment is our first design goal.
2) Relatively weak creatures should be more likely to die than more powerful creatures. This is already the way it works in 3.5, for the most part, since more powerful creatures have high fortitude saves and frequently have spell resistance or other defenses. While it may have existed in 3.5, we want to make sure we are explicitly stating this as a goal.
3) Save or Die has a long history in the game, going back to 1st edition. The idea of the effect as 'instant' is so strongly tied into the concept of the spell that an instant effect is preferable to a 'lingering effect'. This is not to say that debilitating spells or spells that cause death over a short period of time are not desireable. They appear as a viable spell design option and deserve exploration as a NEW class of spells, rather than the transformation of existing save or die spells.
4) PCs suffer most from Save-or-Die effects since they are in every scene, while most NPCs are in one or a small few. Since they will frequently encounter them, there should be at least a small chance of a character surviving. Allowing a chance to survive is another goal.
5) If the chance to survive exists, putting that power in the hands of the DM is the most appropriate course of action. Since the DM has the responsibility to ensure a 'fun game' for all the players, and the definition of 'fun' varies from table to table, Save-or-Die effects should allow a DM to 'fudge' if he (or she) so desires as appropriate for their group.
6) When used as a PC spell, it is usually 'all or nothing'. A high level spell that is saved against has little or no effect, which can be very frustrating. A spell that deals 1/2 damage on a successful save, for instance, still does SOMETHING. The spells should have some effect on a successfuls save to prevent them from becoming worthless.
Possible Solutions
1) Save or Die does a fixed amount of hit point damage each round until the character dies.
Pros: The PCs are likely to be able to survive, since they are the most likely to have available healing in most scenes. Most encounters with monsters do not have creatures capable of the type of healing required to prevent death from this type of effect.
Cons: If the PCs have no available healing, they will still die. If the enemy has sufficient healing, the liklihood of dying is minimal. Since an effected enemy can continue to operate for some number of rounds, the spells are not terribly effective - they may kill the enemy, but since many encounters only last for a round or two, the failed save may mean no actual change in the course of the battle.
2) Save or Die does a fixed amount of hit point damage each round until the character passes a save.
Pros: The PCs are quite likely to survive.
Cons: So is everyone else. The spell would be considered suboptimal, and lacks any dramatic effect.
3) Save or Die inflicts negative levels.
Pros: Negative levels involve very little math since the penalty is applied to each d20 roll - other than hit points, no other changes must be figured.
Cons: The loss of levels (even when restored) is inconvenient to many parties since it creates the possibility of a fairly wide range of effective levels in any given party. Since many players have 'fun' by contributing to the success of the party, if they are significantly weaker it creates problems. Many other groups don't use XP at all, in which case, and the idea of 'XP penalty' is not favored in Pathfinder, making this a somewhat incompatible system.
4) Save or Die inflicts Con Drain on a failed save.
Pros: Likely to 'kill outright' maintaining dramatic effect. Allows a chance for PCs to survive, though greatly weakened. Relatively low Con creatures tend to be 'relatively weak creatures' and are more likely to be killed outright.
Cons: I'm having trouble with this one. It seems to hit all the design goals I laid out as the ones I think are important. Anyone else disagree or have different design goals?
[b]Further Clarification[b]
The above solutions don't describe what happens on a successful save. While it could be any effect, it deserves some consideration. One of the things that I like about #4 is that the amount of Con Drain on a failed save could equal the amount of HP damage on a successful save.
My personal damage of choice: 1d6 +1d6/3 caster levels.
Thus a 9th level caster casting a 5th level spell should deal 3d6 total damage. I would list the damage as 3d6 +1d6/3 caster levels for the sake of clarity. (4d6 at 12th, 5d6 at 15th, etc).
At 18th level this would allow the spell to deal between 6 and 36 Con Drain. The advantage of this over another formula (like 1d6+Caster Level) is that it offers a chance for a PC to survive even with a Con of 12 (which is still quite possible), but it also gives a chance to kill most dragons and giants outright.
snip
Well stated.
You asked for a 'Con' for Con drain. It's actually similar to the case for negative levels. Without the ability to restore the Constitution drain, a character will find life much more difficult. Even back-of-the-party characters need hit points. Having their Constitution dropped to something suitably low means that one good fireball is now lethal, save or no save.
Another 'Con': how easy is it to counteract ability drain preemptively?
Your proposed range for the effect is interesting. I'd like to see how it playtested out. But now what difference will the level of the spell make, beyond the saving throw, if the damage is the same?
|
|
snipWell stated.
You asked for a 'Con' for Con drain. It's actually similar to the case for negative levels. Without the ability to restore the Constitution drain, a character will find life much more difficult. Even back-of-the-party characters need hit points. Having their Constitution dropped to something suitably low means that one good fireball is now lethal, save or no save.
Another 'Con': how easy is it to counteract ability drain preemptively?Your proposed range for the effect is interesting. I'd like to see how it playtested out. But now what difference will the level of the spell make, beyond the saving throw, if the damage is the same?
Currently all 3.5 versions of Save-or-Die have the exact same effect. Someone dies.
The only question is who can be targeted and how.
On the one hand, I would like to see the spells 'retooled' from a 'baseline' so they are more distinct from each other. But right now, what's the real difference between Slay Living and Finger of Death?
Range. That was easy.
With that said...
Lesser Restoration in combat is like CLW in combat. Ok. You take 14 con damage, drop 7 HP per HD. Presumably you aren't dead yet. Someone Lesser Restorations you, you gain 1d4 Con back meaning 0-2 HP per HD. Well chances are you'll die next round anyways, so it didn't matter. Same as casting CLW in combat (even at level 1, they probably outdamage your healing making it a waste of an action).
Now, casting regular Restoration or Heal in combat works, but Lesser is better out of combat (wands are cheap).
|
|
As I said before, the only point I disagree with you on is the need to differentiate the spells' effects. From my post on page one of this thread:
I think the death spells are already fairly well balanced against each other:
Level 4: Phantasmal Killer. Single target, 2 saves.
Level 5: Slay Living. Single target, melee touch attack, 1 save.
Level 7: Destruction: Single target, 1 save.
Level 7: Finger of Death: Single target, 1 save.
Level 9: Implosion. Multiple target (limited by level), 1 save.
Level 9: Wail of the Banshee. Multiple target (limited by level), 1 save.
Level 9: Weird. Multiple target (limited only by area), extra partial effects, 2 saves.The spells are much better as you go up the levels, I don't think they need differentiating any more.
I agree that they don't need additional differentation, but I still would not oppose it. For example, if a particular spell caused 'fatigue' on a successful save as an 'exception' to the general rule... But that's just flavor, and the spells are differentiated on how they work, as you rightly have pointed out. To say that my proposal has all the spells with the same effect is true, but that is in line with 3.5 - thus why it is a separate discussion. The way save or die functions on a failed save (instant death) is the part of the rule that hasn't worked well, and the 10 hp/lvl just doesn't seem to match the flavor.
So, yeah, I agree. I'm not saying they should change, but that is a worthwhile discussion once the regular rule is ironed out.
And as a DM I don't tend to fudge the die rolls, but I do believe that since every DM uses basically the same rules, and some believe that it is actually an obligation, if the rules don't allow for that play style, that is a weakness (in my opinion). While it likely won't affect my game, I try to be sensitive to other play styles (which can be difficult).
I read in detail the Con drain/damage suggestion and I find it even worse now.
Why:
1. Average/normal/commoner person has a chance to survive after a failed save???!?!?!?!?
This is the reason I hate 3e poison effects, they do not kill anyone, even commoners!! People die from poison in RL much more often then in D&D.2. Spell still does not guarantee a kill on a failed save on monsters and NPCs and that is the biggest difference from the traditional SoD.
3. If it kills the enemy, it still kills it in one round, preventing other party member from being a part of the fight.
4. I makes DMs and players do needless bookkeeping that is more complicated then just HP damage or loss of portion of Max HP per round.
5. I lowers the Fort save against all other effects. So a person survives the Death effect and now can be more easily Blinded?! Or Stunned, or poisoned. As far as I know Finger of Death attacks your Soul, not your body, why should it reduce your resistance to poisons and diseases in the process?
I could see this as a part of Disentigrate or Destruction effects, but not Finger of Death.Taking your points one at a time:
1. At low levels, they'll have a slim chance of survival. At higher levels, they'll have none. This does not seem a major problem to me.
2. Not guaranteeing a kill is the whole point of scaling SoD, I thought. And it's more likely to get a kill than most other methods.
3. For the third time, please answer these questions:
Why is it fun to fight an enemy you know is already beaten? Why wouldn't you just run away and wait for it to die, rather than fighting it and wasting resources/ needlessly risking death?
4. No, it doesn't. Recalculating Con, HPs and Fort once is no more complicated than recalculating HP several times.
5. If Finger of death attacks your soul rather than your body, why does it require a Fortitude save rather than a Will save?
1. I see a big problem if a common Joe survives a Death Effect even after a failed save. If the effect of a failed save is some damage that Joe is going to die from that for sure (they cannot survive even the 3d6+1 per caster level that is it now). Am I the only one that sees this as a funny design for a spell?!
Not to mention that commoners should not not survive any lvl 5+ attack spells even on a failed save (as they do not atm).As I mentioned before, the way poisons work commoners survive them all the time even on two failed saves. I want this stupidity eradicated, not introduce a new similar failed mechanic.
2. No, as another poster said, the whole deal of the spell is that it kills (but he wanted it to kill instantly). I still want it to do a sure kill, just so it is slower then one round (so one can still have a chance to save himself if he is capable or do something before his death). None of the other core (balanced - more or less :D) spells or attack routines finish of enemies in one round, so this one should not as well.
3a. You do not know that. The caster character knows that.
3b. Group fights in D&D against single or multiple opponents are fun (or are supposed to be so). They are not just something that needs to be over so you can do something else. I have no idea how you play your D&D sessions, but fighting is supposed to be as fun as everything else.
Maybe this casters finish all fights in 1 round thing has made you so negative against the whole thing, but I still see the fun of it. And it is fun to fight even though the opponent is going to die a round or two later by himself. And if you fight you can finish it one round faster so he gets one round less to attack you or cast or use some item to save himself.
Everything to you is about resources and numbers. I only see the opportunity for fun in each fight. Slower combat means more fun. Spelsl that do not finish the fight in one round means more fun.
4. Err, no. Look at the current character sheets. None of them have the ready space to write all this on round by round basis.
And there is a space to write damage you get per round from my version of SoD. Recalculating is not the only problem as I have shown you.
5. As I just read, the spell descriptions (in SRD and PF) are left undefined. So I guess what I said is my interpretation of the spell. As such is not valid in the discussion (except for me). But this comment was never a real one and was always more or less a personal preference.
Slow combat is fun huh? I bet you like 4.0, which does the equivalent of making level 1 characters do 1d2 damage while still fighting CR 1 creatures with 13 HP or so.
With that out of the way, talking is a free action.
Caster: "This one's as good as dead! Don't risk yourselves!"
Guy actually putting life on line who has just been given a pass: "Good. Dibs on his sword."
|
Good to see this discussion is continuing; and lots of good ideas! Personally, I'm also a supporter of CON drain, and like Biggus tend to prefer the 3d6 + 1/2 caster level amount.
1. I see a big problem if a common Joe survives a Death Effect even after a failed save. If the effect of a failed save is some damage that Joe is going to die from that for sure (they cannot survive even the 3d6+1 per caster level that is it now). Am I the only one that sees this as a funny design for a spell?!
Not to mention that commoners should not not survive any lvl 5+ attack spells even on a failed save (as they do not atm).
As I mentioned before, the way poisons work commoners survive them all the time even on two failed saves. I want this stupidity eradicated, not introduce a new similar failed mechanic.
In our discussion on one of the other threads, the whole "commoner surviving a death effect" was brought up (I think even by myself, too). However, after thinking some more on it, I have to question just how much of a "big problem" this is. Are commoners often being targeted by death effects in your campaign? Not trying to be snarky, if they are, that's your perogative; it just seems to me that since commoners aren't (usually) PCs or the primary BBEG, the situation would be rare. If a DM wanted the evil priest to slay a local farmer for a story effect, seems to me they would just rule it worked; after all, even in 3.5, a successful save would ruin the mood just as much as a (rare) low roll would with the CON drain/damage suggestion. In fact, it may actually be better ("Did you guys see what that priest did to that poor farmer? Crippled him for life! It's only by the grace of the gods he didn't kill him!") ...
|
|
I'd like to respond to your several points. Ideally the way I've quoted Biggus and your response will help to keep things clear. Diving in:
1. At low levels, they'll have a slim chance of survival. At higher levels, they'll have none. This does not seem a major problem to me.
1. I see a big problem if a common Joe survives a Death Effect even after a failed save. If the effect of a failed save is some damage that Joe is going to die from that for sure (they cannot survive even the 3d6+1 per caster level that is it now). Am I the only one that sees this as a funny design for a spell?!
Not to mention that commoners should not not survive any lvl 5+ attack spells even on a failed save (as they do not atm).
As I mentioned before, the way poisons work commoners survive them all the time even on two failed saves. I want this stupidity eradicated, not introduce a new similar failed mechanic.
I don't see a big problem with Joe Commoner surviving a finger of death spell cast by a 20th level wizard. Depending on several factors, he might have survived the spell on a Natural 20, so we already assume there is a 5% chance to pass the save no matter how badly he is outmatched. What percentage of increase is there in his surviving?
Assuming the 3d6+1/2 caster level method, a 20th level caster will do a minimum of 13 Con Drain, and ouught to average around 20 Con Drain. Since our commoner has an 11 Con (unless he's a dwarf) he is guaranteed to die. So, no problem there. However, with a 5th level spell and an 11th level caster, we're talking a minimum of 8 drain... Just a small chance of survival (since average is 15). The odds of rolling 3 1s is 1/214 or .46%. Thus, instead of a 5% chance to survive, he has a 5.46% chance of survival... However, when we figure in the hit point damage, he might not survive at all. Since his firt HD isn't normall 'max', the loss of 5 hit points will likely leave him 'dying'. In fact, this might well reduce his odds of survival, since on a failed save he would take 3d6+1/2 caster level HP damage, so if he passes the save he could still die!
The argument about a commoner being only infrequently the target of a death effect is also certainly valid. The game doesn't really have to concern itself with this situation, but I do want the rules to be consistent between the PCs and NPCs. Thus, if I want PCs to be able to survive (or enemy NPCs) - even just a small chance, I want there to exist this small chance for anyone to survive, and I don't want to put it all on a single die roll.
2. Not guaranteeing a kill is the whole point of scaling SoD, I thought. And it's more likely to get a kill than most other methods.
2. No, as another poster said, the whole deal of the spell is that it kills (but he wanted it to kill instantly). I still want it to do a sure kill, just so it is slower then one round (so one can still have a chance to save himself if he is capable or do something before his death). None of the other core (balanced - more or less :D) spells or attack routines finish of enemies in one round, so this one should not as well.
I don't really want a spell that 'guarantees death' on a failed save, but puts a delay on it. If the PC knows he is dead in 3 rounds and NOTHING can stop it, yeah, he gets a few more actions, but I still have the problem where at the end of the fight his friends have to get him resurrected or he has to make a new character. Neither of those are going to be 'quick' (at least, not when SoD starts becoming active in the game). If the PC is capable of doing something to save himself, so would Joe Commoner. Or the cleric would have a chance to save the princess in the example above. The idea of the bad guy doing something bad before anyone can respond is so cliche it was featured in Disney's Sleeping Beauty from 1959. To my mind, anything featured in a Disney cartoon is so much a part of our cultural consciousness that it cannot and should not be denied. So, I disagree both with the assertion that the small chance of a commoner surviving is bad, but even if I did, I would still argue that it will be so uncommon as to be easily dismissed.
3. For the third time, please answer these questions:Why is it fun to fight an enemy you know is already beaten? Why wouldn't you just run away and wait for it to die, rather than fighting it and wasting resources/ needlessly risking death?
3a. You do not know that. The caster character knows that.
If the effect takes place over time, how does the caster actually know? That does involve some clarification. But assuming that he does, it is easily communicated. Even if it were not, asking a group of players not meta-game the knowledge is asking a lot. If the DM communicates the information to the caster, the other players will hear it. So, while my character might not know the character is beaten (or might, but whatever) it makes it very hard to pretend I don't know something. For example, if the DM tells me that he has a green door in the dungeon that anyone touches and they instantly die, no save, do I want to touch it when I find it in the game? My character wouldn't have that knowledge... It certainly wouldn't be fun for me to choose to 'act in character' and 'ignore my metagame knowledge'. When it comes to things like that, I'd rather not know. Going back to the door, if I know and I would have chosen NOT to touch the door, am I certain that is the way I would feel if I didn't know? Must I now touch it to prove that I'm not metagaming. That's can of worms I want to leave off the table if I can help it.
3b. Group fights in D&D against single or multiple opponents are fun (or are supposed to be so). They are not just something that needs to be over so you can do something else. I have no idea how you play your D&D sessions, but fighting is supposed to be as fun as everything else.
Maybe this casters finish all fights in 1 round thing has made you so negative against the whole thing, but I still see the fun of it. And it is fun to fight even though the opponent is going to die a round or two later by himself. And if you fight you can finish it one round faster so he gets one round less to attack you or cast or use some item to save himself.
Everything to you is about resources and numbers. I only see the opportunity for fun in each fight. Slower combat means more fun. Spelsl that do not finish the fight in one round means more fun.
Do your players spend a lot of time hacking into fallen opponents while other opponents are still standing? Mine don't. They'd consider it a wasted action. They can always hack the bodies after the fight if they think it is necessary. The only difference is that this 'fallen enemy' can still get in a blow or two before he stops. They're more likely to withdraw (if possible) as the enemy dies, then move back to fight his surviving friends, or if that is impossible, to engage the surviving friends while waiting for the effect to actually work.
Again though, a Save or Die that takes 2-3 rounds doesn't actually shorten the fight, making it a bad choice for a spell. If the wizard did not use the SoD and instead used direct damage spells while everyone else attacks using their normal attack procedure, the fight usually takes 2-3 rounds (in my extensive experience). There are a few fights that take quite a bit longer (usually with some kind of terrain that makes movement difficult) but for the most part a couple of rounds is all that is involved. Thus, if the opponent fails the SoD in the first round, if your solution he would have several rounds of actions, allowing him to inflict a world of hurt. Since D&D combat is not so much about killing the opponent as much as it is killing him before he can render you unable to continue adventuring, the long delay (even 2 or 3 rounds) makes SoD unappealing.
4. No, it doesn't. Recalculating Con, HPs and Fort once is no more complicated than recalculating HP several times.
4. Err, no. Look at the current character sheets. None of them have the ready space to write all this on round by round basis.
And there is a space to write damage you get per round from my version of SoD. Recalculating is not the only problem as I have shown you.
I will agree that recalculating HP each round is almost as easy as applying a single penalty to Constitution. But they're both pretty quick. Since the Con doesn't have to be written 'round by round', and there is a space for a 'temporary ability score', there should be no worries either way. Personally, I like the flavor of the SoD attacking your actual 'vitality', quite distinct from a sword through the chest. The difference in type of damage helps delineate the difference in my mind. The 'crunch' supports the fluff. That's a good thing.
5. If Finger of death attacks your soul rather than your body, why does it require a Fortitude save rather than a Will save?
5. As I just read, the spell descriptions (in SRD and PF) are left undefined. So I guess what I said is my interpretation of the spell. As such is not valid in the discussion (except for me). But this comment was never a real one and was always more or less a personal preference.
Either way, it can be explained in a way that makes sense. For example, if you choose the flavor of a spell like that 'attacking your soul' you could consider the idea of the soul animating and operating the body - sort of the 'driver'. The spell might not 'kill' the driver outright, but it might nearly sever the connection. You couldn't drive really well if you've just been shot, even if you survive the bullet, right? But of course, once the rules are decided, everyone can choose the fluff that fits there game.
That's what I think, anyway.
Damn it, I wrote a long post and lost it after clicking submit.
I do not feel like writing the whole thing again so I will just summarize what I wrote about.
Commoners should die from death spells. Their fail their save, they have no chance to survive.
My version gives you the opportunity to stop the death spells in those rounds. You can use Dispel Magic to try to stop the effect (but keep the damage done so far) or Heal (or Greater Restoration - not sure which one would be better; maybe Heal since Druids get it as well) to heal the damage done so far but not stop the spell doing more damage until its duration runs out. You can also cast Death Ward to stop the damage done for the rest of the duration of the spell (but not cancel the spell; someone can then dispel the death ward but not that SoD if chance would have it that way).
My suggestion says that SoD do 1/2 or 1/3 of max HP per round for 2 or 3 rounds, so yes, fights are shorter if the opponent has:
a) lots of HP
b) lots of AC and/or defenses
And as I concluded in the "eaten" post, I agree that we disagree so I see no need to continue this discussion. Everything important has been said and any neutral party can decide by themselves what they like more.
|
|
Commoners should die from death spells. Their fail their save, they have no chance to survive.
I agree that they should die, as well. Obviously if they pass their save, they might live. What I'm suggesting is reducing the chance of surviving on a passed save (since they're guaranteed to take damage even if they pass the save) and putting a bit of a chance of survival if they fail the save (but very unlikely).
After thinking about it some more, I think 1d4 / 2 caster levels or 1d4 per spell level might be about right.
Thus at 5th level SoD would do 5d4 Con Drain when cast by a 10th level caster. In the first version that damage increases, so at 20th level it is 10d4, while in the second version it is static.
Either way, the odds of a commoner surviving even 5d4 are extremely low. And depending on the level of the commoner, up to 20 hp damage will kill them as well.
Ability damage is not 'easily cured' during combat. Spells like Lesser Restoration and Restoration have a 3 round casting time. Heal becomes the 'instant cure', however. For that reason I still favor it as drain. The spell Restoration is a 4th level spell, so it becomes available at the time that SoD become available as well.
The idea that PCs are treated the same way as every other type of creature (whether it is a monster or an NPC class) is fundamental to the operation of the game, so if the spell is designed well, the chance of survival for a weak creature can be infintesmal without being eliminated entirely.
Either way, the odds of a commoner surviving even 5d4 are extremely low. And depending on the level of the commoner, up to 20 hp damage will kill them as well.
I touched on this in the "eaten" post but I see I forgot to mention it again in my repeat one.
By reducing someone's Con you do not damage them. You just reduce their max hp. And You cannot even reduce their max hp to lower then 1 per their HD (or class level), even if you reduce their Con to 1.
So no, commoners will not die if they fail their save. Their chance to survive is really big. Especially on a 5d4 for lvl 9 caster.
I suggest you go back to the drawing board.
Maybe something like 1d4+caster level. This way only 1 in 4 commoners would survive it and only if they are the 11 Con type.
|
|
Either way, the odds of a commoner surviving even 5d4 are extremely low. And depending on the level of the commoner, up to 20 hp damage will kill them as well.I touched on this in the "eaten" post but I see I forgot to mention it again in my repeat one.
By reducing someone's Con you do not damage them. You just reduce their max hp. And You cannot even reduce their max hp to lower then 1 per their HD (or class level), even if you reduce their Con to 1.
So no, commoners will not die if they fail their save. Their chance to survive is really big. Especially on a 5d4 for lvl 9 caster.
I suggest you go back to the drawing board.
Maybe something like 1d4+caster level. This way only 1 in 4 commoners would survive it and only if they are the 11 Con type.
Page 290: If a character's Constitution score drops, then he loses 1 hit point per Hit Die for every point by which his Constitution modifier drops. For example, at 7th level, Tordek is hit by poison that drops his Constitution modifier from 16 to 13. His Constitution modifier falls from +3 to +1, so he loses 14 hit points (2 per level). A minute later, the poison deals another 8 points of Constitution damage, dropping his score to 5 and his modifier to -3. He loses another 28 hit points -- for a total of 42 hit points lost because of an overall 6 point drop in Constitution modifier.A hit point score can't be reduced by Constitution damage or drain to less than 1 hit point per HD. At 7th level Mialee has 22 hit points when fully healed. Even if her Constitution drops to 5 or lower, sh will still have at least 7 hit points (less any damage she may take).
While the CON damage will not kill the Commoner if the amount does not exceed the Con score, it will almost certainly reduce the character to 1 hp/HD. That is 'greatly weakened' in my book.
If a Commoner has a Con of 10, the average damage from 5d4 con is 12.5. Most of the time they will die. Assuming minimum damage (1 in 1024) the character will lose 3 hit points per HD (average hit points for commoner 3.5 per HD). Under most situations they will die outright. As the damage increases, the odds of surviving decrease as well.
The fact remains that PCs will likely encounter SoD with great frequency, while it rarely will affect a commoner in a game. Giving the PCs a slight chance to survive is important in my games. Giving the NPC a slight chance to survive is a necessary function. Since I don't expect any commoners to be targeted by the spell (what a waste!) I'm confident they'll meet their expected end with sufficient frequency that it still let's the scary Necromancer intimidate people by doing it. And better yet, if they DO survive (which he'll probably claim was him being nice) they're WORSE OFF! They have to live with being permantently close to death, always getting sick and generally living a short and miserable existence (since they will have no Fort save to speak of).
And again, if the spell does that amount of damage on a passed save, there is still a chance to kill the Commoner even if he makes his save. I'm willing to allow a small chance of the commoner surviving on a failed save (again, something I consider necessary if the PC is to have a chance as well) and I've reduced the likelihood that they'll survive overall (unless they have approximately 4 HD).
I will point out that Lesser Restoration has a casting time of 3 rounds, so it is not a spell to be casting during combat. Heal, however, does cure ability damage (not drain) so could be used in combat.
This too. And Heal is already good to cast in combat because it actually heals enough HP to be worth the combat action.