Here are some of the Save or Die spells that I think need to be modified to allow additional saves, effects, etc.
Baleful Polymorph -- add ongoing save/round to the will save component (for loss of Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma scores, special abilities, etc)
Dominate Person/Monster -- add a new saving throw each day
Feeblemind -- add ongoing will save each round, perhaps also make it a round/level duration
Flesh to Stone -- Create a tiered save, 1st round slowed, 2nd round paralyzed, 3rd round turned to stone, with a fort save at each. Perhaps add that even a successful save does not stop spell, so if you save against Slowed on the 1st round, you could still be effected the 2nd or 3rd round.
Hideous Laughter -- add ongoing save/round effected
Suggestion -- change duration to rounds/level and add ongoing save/round
Any that I missed?
|
Those are not save or die spells.
They are tough spells, but to give repeated saves really does drop the level of those spells by at least 2 if you're going to consider this. I highly recommend against it.
Neat idea with Flesh to Stone, though, having a few effects before it fully kicks in.
EDIT: Why is my brain telling me that this is what 4e does to saves? I really don't know the 4e rules, but something is tickling at my memory for "stuff I've heard about 4e".... of course, I'm sure as much is wrong as right that I've heard. :)
EDIT AGAIN: Where have I seen a spell that already does this? Maybe some kind of beholder effect? Again, memory is failing me. Maybe I should take that stuff... gingk...something....
I have been recently studying how rounds work in 1E, 2E and 3E, and it is interesting how it relates to these types of spells.
Rounds were 1 minute long in previous editions.
Rounds in 3E and Pathfinder are 6 seconds.
It was more "believable" to apply save or die's in a 1 minute round IMHO.
6 seconds is awfully fast to die from a Finger of Death or turn to stone for example.
I realize that I'm looking at this from my own flavor perspective, but under the current round system, I think there is an opportunity to give these types of spells more of a narrative and excitement that is lacking.
By giving several, if not all of these spell types a multiple round effect sequence, it'll open the door to several possible outcomes, not least of which is for heroic moments and giving victims of such spells (or their allies) a small chance to react, while at the same time keeping the lethal edge of such spells.
The example by the OP for Flesh to Stone is a perfect example of what I'm referring to.
Another example:
The Finger of Death spell can remain deadly, but just take longer to achieve it's final effect. It can still have only one initial save, but instead of doing hp damage, it does Con damgage each round, say 1d8. Alternatively, it can drop the victim to 0 hp on the first round, and on successive rounds, the victim loses 1d6hp until dead or the spell is somehow stopped. It would make for great narrative for a victim with the Diehard feat in such an instance.
EDIT: Why is my brain telling me that this is what 4e does to saves? I really don't know the 4e rules, but something is tickling at my memory for "stuff I've heard about 4e".... of course, I'm sure as much is wrong as right that I've heard. :)QUOTE]I am certainly no expert on 4E, but I think what You are thinking of is how in 4E, most (all maybe?) spells with debilitating effects last until you save against them. A bad example would be being blinded from one round to the next until you make a save.
Not very exciting, dangerous, awe-inspiring, etc, to me.
Those are not save or die spells.
Yes, technically most of them are save or be disabled/rendered useless. But the real problem with them is that it's not something that can be easily (as in healing potions, cure spells, etc) recovered from. So unless your cleric happened to memorize that exact counter spell that day, you are done.
Taking a character out of play for multiple sessions or forcing a return to town to get just the right scroll because of a single missed saving throw is not what most people consider a fun use of their gaming time and I think should be avoided where possible.
They are tough spells, but to give repeated saves really does drop the level of those spells by at least 2 if you're going to consider this. I highly recommend against it.
At the level these spells come into play, taking someone out of combat for even a single round can often be worth the spell cost.
In 3.5, when Hold Person gained the additional save each round, it went from a Save or Die spell to a balanced spell that could still take you out for the entire combat, but added some protection against just a bad roll.
Flesh to Stone -- Create a tiered save, 1st round slowed, 2nd round paralyzed, 3rd round turned to stone, with a fort save at each. Perhaps add that even a successful save does not stop spell, so if you save against Slowed on the 1st round, you could still be effected the 2nd or 3rd round.
interesting thought...
This could potentially be applied to most debilitating spells as a standard mechanic, similar to how detect spells come out to their full potential only after the third round.
'findel
The spells are fine as written. Every spell on that list can be countered with various means of magic by bards, wizards, clerics, sorcerers, and paladins.
If half the core classes can reverse the condition then it falls on the party to be prepared to do so. The worse case scenario is to just carry a couple of scrolls to help with the moments were a bad save occurs.
A lot of effects have already been removed from spell casters from shortened durations, to lesser effects, to removal of save or die spells. Changing the other status effect spells so that you get a new save every round until you succeed will force casters to either never learn those spells... or work to focus and an insanely high DC.
I have been recently studying how rounds work in 1E, 2E and 3E, and it is interesting how it relates to these types of spells.
Rounds were 1 minute long in previous editions.
Rounds in 3E and Pathfinder are 6 seconds.It was more "believable" to apply save or die's in a 1 minute round IMHO.
6 seconds is awfully fast to die from a Finger of Death or turn to stone for example.
I realize that I'm looking at this from my own flavor perspective, but under the current round system, I think there is an opportunity to give these types of spells more of a narrative and excitement that is lacking.
By giving several, if not all of these spell types a multiple round effect sequence, it'll open the door to several possible outcomes, not least of which is for heroic moments and giving victims of such spells (or their allies) a small chance to react, while at the same time keeping the lethal edge of such spells.
The example by the OP for Flesh to Stone is a perfect example of what I'm referring to.
Another example:
The Finger of Death spell can remain deadly, but just take longer to achieve it's final effect. It can still have only one initial save, but instead of doing hp damage, it does Con damgage each round, say 1d8. Alternatively, it can drop the victim to 0 hp on the first round, and on successive rounds, the victim loses 1d6hp until dead or the spell is somehow stopped. It would make for great narrative for a victim with the Diehard feat in such an instance.
If these spells don't have their intended effect and quickly why use them?
I mean really, I can try this what up to 5 times against one monster at a time, with no garuantee of success?
Why limit it more?
Yes these spell can hurt, but the chance of hitting with them isn't great (good yes, but not great maybe 75% chance of it landing) and it can only affect one target at a time.
Beyond that an encounter is going to last long enough that the creature should have another save throw?
If the players get hit with them and the problem is that they are suffering on going effects that make things harder on them, well that's part of the adventuring life!
Finally this is magic. It should be magical.
|
Something you might consider if you want to tone down spells like this is to tone up the save effect. Look at 'Hold Monster". In 3.5 at least, you where paralyzed, but could get a new save each round. Every singly time I tried this spell, the monster got out of the spell within 3 rounds. From my side, as a player, it was unreliable. To the point that I would never use or even memorize those spells.
A good option to increase the use of these types of spells is to give them a lesser, shorter effect on a failed save. In the "Hold ____", it would go a long long way if on a successful save, the target(s) are just treated as Encumbered for a d4 rounds. Or something like that. To be a little more fair across the board, maybe they lose 5ft or 10ft from all movement types, (min 5ft) for d4 rounds.
Another up side is that in cases like this, there is some effect no matter what the save is, but also a caster can actually plan on using the spell around the lesser effect instead of risking something or nothing at all.
Also, in 1st and 2nd edition, many spells had no save. It just happened. For those who did give saves, Saves where based on the effected character only, not the caster. Keep that in mind when you compair 3.0+ to older editions.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I'm not comparing editions from a mechanics standpoint, so much as from a style standpoint. To elaborate, in older editions, a round was assumed to be one minute long, and 3E made it 6 seconds. In older editions it was assumed that you were doing a lot of stuff during that one minute of time that did not need to be addressed with rules. 3E has shortened the round to a point such that it tries to be very simulationist in its efforts, i.e. it seems to seek to describe every little detail of a combat, rather than assume certain aspects. There is merit in both approaches I think.
Translating the 1E/2E concept of how long a round takes and applying it to save or die spells is what I was really trying to get across. It is obvious that the designers have addressed save or dies to mitigate the one bad roll and you're gone aspect of them. I'm not trying to lower their potency, but rather allow for a moment for the victim to avert his predicament or at the very least get one last response in before his adventure is over.
I'm not looking for a toning down of the spell. Just a chance for himself or others to react before death sets in
Another example:
The Finger of Death spell can remain deadly, but just take longer to achieve it's final effect. It can still have only one initial save, but instead of doing hp damage, it does Con damgage each round, say 1d8. Alternatively, it can drop the victim to 0 hp on the first round, and on successive rounds, the victim loses 1d6hp until dead or the spell is somehow stopped. It would make for great narrative for a victim with the Diehard feat in such an instance.
If these spells don't have their intended effect and quickly why use them?
I mean really, I can try this what up to 5 times against one monster at a time, with no garuantee of success?
Why limit it more?
In my example above of finger of death, I was simply throwing out alternatives to what I think the designers are trying to address which is the demise from one bad roll.
Expanding upon my initial idea, if the finger of death spell were written such that upon a failed save you drop to -1 hp and dying, and each round you automatically sustain 1d6 hp (with no 10% chance to stabilize) until dead...
Would that be any less effective than either the 3.5 or Pathfinder version? All it does is give allies a chance to react before the victim reaches his ultimate course, without resorting to raising him.
If it is deemed the former, we don't bother to change the rules.
If it is the latter, then we continue to discuss. I personally think we can come up with something more flavorful than you take 10hp of damage per caster level per round, for the typical save or die, though I don't think that is all bad. It just seems too generic a mechanic.
With such a change though we should just can the name of the spell from "FINGER OF DEATH!" to "I'm going to tick for several rounds and do nothing while someone else kills you."
I wouldn't mind so much except these should be good: They take time to get to, and aren't garuanteed to work. So when they do they should do so spectacularly, not with a whimper.
I would absolutely hate to see these sorts of spells being reduced to a new version of the blasting spells. After all we see how well those work.
Now if instead of a save throw you want it to be a caster level check with some sort of bonus that must be rolled over the hit dice of the target (maybe hit dice + 10... that might be a bit high though) I could be ok with that becuase the spell would improve as the caster improves.
In the end I think adding more hurdles to these spells working would mean players won't use them. This isn't final fantasy where you can cast that death spell 5 times a combat, at most you can do 6 times a day (minus any buffs, utility, defense or other spells you might want).
Compared to anywhere from 3~5 combats a day... 1~5 enemies a combat... you'll run out of death and doom spells before you do targets, and rightly so, the spells are good but limited in both probability and usage.
No save or die spells need modification from their 3.5 version, except that the hit point cap on power word kill needs to be increased to 151 or 201 to reflect how Pathfinder characters have significantly more hit points than AD&D characters.
Something you might consider if you want to tone down spells like this is to tone up the save effect. Look at 'Hold Monster". In 3.5 at least, you where paralyzed, but could get a new save each round. Every singly time I tried this spell, the monster got out of the spell within 3 rounds. From my side, as a player, it was unreliable. To the point that I would never use or even memorize those spells.
Yeah, I've noticed, too. No one person uses 3.5 Hold person. But if you want to tone down spells like this the better is get a new save each round, but that this don’t end the spell. Maybe the enemy got out of the spell within few rounds, but fall back to one or two later: the spell is not totally useless. And this give opportunities to neutralize the spell to the characters and intelligent villains. It is a pity, but spells as Glitterdust are now useless in PFRPG. A mechanics like this would make them weaker than the 3.5 spell, but not useless.
To my style of playing, SoD spells work fine, but for groups that do not work the best suggerence that I have read in these messageboards is left the target to -1 and dying. That gives a chance to help his friends.
About spells as Feeblemind, Dominate, and more, can be countered easy. Potions and scrolls should to be used for this emergencies, not for to get thousands of buffs.
|
Both as a player and a DM I'm all for adding "new" saves to 'save-or-die'-effects -- both spells and monster abilities.
As a player, even when I'm playing a fighter (or even a paladin), I'm overwhelmed with dread as I'm rolling against that 'Disintegrate' or 'Implosion' or Petrification. It's especially lethal and frustrating if you're not a min-maxer and/oryour party does not use a lot of "buffs". And even if it were my *best* save, I just hate that I might still have to roll 15+ to survive. Having spent hours just "sitting out" the rest of the session and waiting for 'Stone to Flesh' or 'True Resurrection', I know how dull it is. And this happens at least every second session to one of the guys.
As a DM, even when the player's Fort Save is +15 or something, I'm still overwhelmed with dread as he rolls against an effect that I know will leave him incapacitated or effectively dead. If he rolls badly, the whole fight might be over. And this is not just a problem concerning high-level PCs or 'Finger of Death'/'Disintegrate' only -- it's the whole 'save-or-be-out-of-the-game-for-this-fight-or-the-rest-of-the-session'-mech anic that needs tweaking.
A concrete example from my Beta playtest campaign:
The party of 3rd level characters (including a human paladin, a half-orc barbarian/cleric, a dwarven fighter and an elven rogue) encountered two Ghasts in a graveyard. After two rounds both of the Ghasts were in pretty bad shape, and the PCs were still in almost full health. Until both of the Ghasts hit, and the fighter and the cleric failed their Fort saves during the third round. They were out for 2-7 minutes, and the whole fight (and the whole *campaign*) almost ended there. I had to "fudge" rolls a bit so that the rogue (who also was affected by the Ghasts' 'Stench', to boot) wouldn't be paralyzed, because even the paladin couldn't have handled 3+ Fort Saves (he's AC is pretty bad) per round. Eventually they won, but it was a close call, because the paladin almost failed a Fort Save, and the rogue just couldn't have handled two Ghasts on his own. My last "trick" would have been to introduce some last-minute "rescue party" to the fight, but it would have felt cheap.
(This encounter showed to me once again the "swinginess" of 3E/PF combat and how badly the saving throws and 'save-or-die'-effects need to balanced.)
All in all the 'save-or-die'-effects may add some "realism" to the game, but is it the added "swinginess" worth it? It's one thing if your players go hunting Beholders and consciously seek "tough" encounters, but most often the players do not have a choice to avoid "impossible-to-save" situations. And some of the powers do not even allow a save ; the fight is pretty much over for you, if you get hit with something like 'Power Word: Stun'.
Already Beta "patches up" things a bit with how Afflictions work -- less "instant" effects and also less Ability Damage if you fail. Why not take it further? If the "save-or-die"-effects were modeled a bit after the 4E mechanics, I think it would add much more balance to the system, without removing the threat of death.
Now, 'Hold Person/Monster' in 3.5/Beta is what I'm thinking of -- you get to reroll your save every round (similar to the 'Save Ends'-mechanic in 4E). If you're paralyzed by a Ghast, you wouldn't probably have to sit out the whole encounter (and, fear for a cruel DM using 'coup-de-grace' on your PC). If you're hit by a 'Disintegrate', your character's life wouldn't depend on a *single* save.
I'm suggesting that 'save-or-die' spells (e.g. 'Sleep' and 'Charm Person' and 'Hold Person' and 'Disintegrate') and monster powers (e.g. Petrification and Paralyzation) would allow you to save at the beginning of your *every* round -- if you fail, your condition may "worsen", but it would take several "steps" to become Charmed/Helpless/Sleeping/Paralyzed etc. (similar to the 'Condition Track' for diseases in 4E). Also, you might *improve* your condition your condition with a successful save, such as from 'Dazed' to normal, as you shrug off the effects of a 'Sleep'-spell.
Or, if the spell simply does continuous damage (e.g. 'Acid Arrow') or is a high-level 'save-or-die'-effect (e.g. 'Disintegrate'), it could just keep on hitting you with plain damage until you save.
Some quick examples:
DISINTEGRATE
As in PF Beta, but instead of being an "instantaneous" spell:
Continuous damage 6D6 + 1 point per Caster Level (Fort save ends). If the victim dies, he/she disintegrates into a pile of ash.
PETRIFICATION / 'FLESH TO STONE'
1st failed save: 3D6 + 1 point per Caster Level/Hit Dice damage and Dazed
2nd failed save: 6D6 + 1 point per Caster Level/Hit Dice damage and Staggered
3rd failed save: Petrified (Dead)
SLEEP
1st failed save: Dazed
2nd failed save: Staggered
3rd failed save: Sleeping (Helpless)
|
I have been recently studying how rounds work in 1E, 2E and 3E, and it is interesting how it relates to these types of spells.
Rounds were 1 minute long in previous editions.
Rounds in 3E and Pathfinder are 6 seconds.
Actually before 3e time was subjective. A round was 1 minute or 6 seconds depending on if you were in combat or not. A turn (another duration for spells) was 10 minutes or 1 minute if you were in combat. This was one of the biggest gripes at my gaming table that disappeared in 3e. Personally I like the save or die spells without a stepdown to possible death.
As a player, even when I'm playing a fighter (or even a paladin), I'm overwhelmed with dread as I'm rolling against that 'Disintegrate' or 'Implosion' or Petrification.
Yes, that's what's supposed to happen. The dread is the desired effect.
it's the whole 'save-or-be-out-of-the-game-for-this-fight-or-the-rest-of-the-session'-mech anic that needs tweaking.
No, it doesn't.
All in all the 'save-or-die'-effects may add some "realism" to the game, but is it the added "swinginess" worth it?
Actually, it doesn't add any realism — and never was supposed to. The swinginess is not a defect, it's the whole point. It encourages smart play, where you achieve goals without exposing yourself to the effect, not just walking up and attacking the creature.
If you are marching up and trying to knock down a creature with a save-or-die power, it's either because you're roleplaying an idiot, or because you are in a last-minute, desperate circumstance where that's the only option left. In the first case, the character should die, routinely. In the second, the whole reason it's dramatic is the risk of catastrophic failure.
|
|
Yes, that's what's supposed to happen. The dread is the desired effect.
And "fairness" isn't? Or balance? It's okay if you occasionally have to fear for the life of your character, but it's kind of frustrating and infuriating if it happens *every* time you need to roll a saving throw.
No, it doesn't.
You're stating your opinion, but this is no poll. If you post an opinion, try to back it up with some sort of counterargument or reasoning -- please refrain from posting "yes" or "no". That doesn't bring anything to the discussion, does it?
Anyway, you may like to sit out whole session (and maybe the next one, too) -- I don't.
Actually, it doesn't add any realism — and never was supposed to. The swinginess is not a defect, it's the whole point. It encourages smart play, where you achieve goals without exposing yourself to the effect, not just walking up and attacking the creature.If you are marching up and trying to knock down a creature with a save-or-die power, it's either because you're roleplaying an idiot, or because you are in a last-minute, desperate circumstance where that's the only option left. In the first case, the character should die, routinely. In the second, the whole reason it's dramatic is the risk of catastrophic failure.
You know, most often when people throw around such concepts as "Smart Play" or "Stupid Play", they actually mean: "People who know how to min-max their characters and people who don't". You don't teach "smart play" by routinely killing PCs who engage monsters because they're roleplaying their characters -- most often you'll only have less players in your group after such incidents.
To further elaborate: this a role-playing game, right? In which you play a character, and try to keep "meta-gaming" to the minimum, i.e. so that even if Joe the Player knows that the hooded figure in a cavern filled with statues is most likely a Medusa, Joehar the Fighter would most likely not know it (even if he was not an idiot), unless he has ranks in appropriate skills. And if you ask me, any player who *only* protects his character's interests and uses "meta-gaming" to do something like: "You know, I know that's a Bodak, and since my guy's Fort save is so low, I'll withdraw to the previous room. Good luck, guys!" would be kicked out of my group.
If I wanted to play a game that encourages tactical play and character preservation over role-playing, I'd grab a boardgame or buy the 4E books.
As for the "swinginess", I really doubt that was ever the point, because it also makes the DM's life pretty hard -- you can never be sure how an encounter actually plays in the game. You might have a TPK in single round. Some DMs are okay with that, and yet some DMs who
If you want combat to feel "frightening" and "chaotic" to your players, try Rolemaster, MERP, or Riddle of Steel. But please don't claim that such things, as constant factors, was an intended effect in 3E. I like my D&D to be fair, balanced and "heroic" -- at least most of the time.
You know, most often when people throw around such concepts as "Smart Play" or "Stupid Play", they actually mean: "People who know how to min-max their characters and people who don't". You don't teach "smart play" by routinely killing PCs who engage monsters because they're roleplaying their characters -- most often you'll only have less players in your group after such incidents.
To further elaborate: this a role-playing game, right? In which you play a character, and try to keep "meta-gaming" to the minimum, i.e. so that even if Joe the Player knows that the hooded figure in a cavern filled with statues is most likely a Medusa, Joehar the Fighter would most likely not know it (even if he was not an idiot), unless he has ranks in appropriate skills. And if you ask me, any player who *only* protects his character's interests and uses "meta-gaming" to do something like: "You know, I know that's a Bodak, and since my guy's Fort save is so low, I'll withdraw to the previous room. Good luck, guys!" would be kicked out of my group.If I wanted to play a game that encourages tactical play and character preservation over role-playing, I'd grab a boardgame or buy the 4E books.
If you want combat to feel "frightening" and "chaotic" to your players, try Rolemaster, MERP, or Riddle of Steel. But please don't claim that such things, as constant factors, was an intended effect in 3E. I like my D&D to be fair, balanced and "heroic" -- at least most of the time.
You know, there's a reason a lot heroes in real life get their awards posthumously. Being a hero can be extremely dangerous. Rushing in heroically, knowing there's no insta-kill effects or things that might take you out in a single round thanks to the way saves are handled or because you can ablate away a lot of hit points isn't exactly free of metagaming.
You know, there's a reason a lot heroes in real life get their awards posthumously. Being a hero can be extremely dangerous. Rushing in heroically, knowing there's no insta-kill effects or things that might take you out in a single round thanks to the way saves are handled or because you can ablate away a lot of hit points isn't exactly free of metagaming.
Thankfully, this isn't real life - it's a role-playing game. We're playing D&D to have fun. And spells that cause characters to either die instantly, lose control of their character, or waste their time taking ineffective actions in combat are definitely not fun.
4th Edition may generally suck golf balls through garden hoses, but they at least managed to recognize this fact and modified their spells and their saving throw system accordingly. I'm hoping that Pathfinder will adopt these kinds of mechanics as well.
I prefer the chance I might lose... what good is a game if I know I'm going to win? Might as well just rent the movie.
I prefer the chance I might lose... what good is a game if I know I'm going to win? Might as well just rent the movie.
Even with saving throws every round against effects that cause players to lose control of their characters, there's still a chance that you'll lose. But guess what? Your chance of walking away from the gaming table to find something else to do will drop to almost zero. Even if you're just rolling a saving throw every round to break free of Dominate Person, you're still doing something that is important to the combat and you're still engaged in the game. There's always the chance you can break free and contribute to the battle once more.
But as it stands right now, if you have a Fighter that gets Dominated or a Wizard that gets Feebleminded, the only thing you'll probably be doing is catching up on your reading, or perhaps playing some XBox 360 while everyone else gets to play Pathfinder.
Well, at least until their characters fail to roll a 17 or better, anyways. Then you all end up playing Halo 3.
|
|
When one of my players gets killed by poor luck in combat I tend to give them the Nintendo retry. This isn't for everyone I know but having a player bite it by rolling a one sucks for everyone. We just restart the battle from round one complete with the inits rolled from the 1st encounter.
However this time I play for keeps and fudge nothing. If I can do a TPK (total Party Kill) I will. I have never succeeded in a TPK but some of those battles are so epic they live in legend. The fact that someone already died in this encounter makes the deja vu encounter so much more intense. More often than not the players succeed and the whole encounter feels even more heroic. I have killed 3 out of the 4 party members though but soften on the raise dead costs.
All in All great excitement
If he rolls badly, the whole fight might be over. And this is not just a problem concerning high-level PCs or 'Finger of Death'/'Disintegrate' only -- it's the whole 'save-or-be-out-of-the-game-for-this-fight-or-the-rest-of-the-session'-mech anic that needs tweaking.
I like instantaneous effects and I don't want to see them completely disappear from the game. I liked someone's suggestion of a +4 on the save for spells that take you out of combat instantly, making it a trade-off for casters depending on how willing they are to gamble, or how desperately they need an instant effect.
Another way to go at this is to add remedies that bring characters back into combat just as instantly. Then you have to consider which of your allies can help you if things go badly, and maybe count how many squares it would take them to reach you. Instant remedies also allow the adventure to continue.
That said, I also like your suggestions for staged effects, and for the sake of tactical variety, I'd love to see more of these types of effects alongside the instant effects.
|
I prefer the chance I might lose... what good is a game if I know I'm going to win? Might as well just rent the movie.Even with saving throws every round against effects that cause players to lose control of their characters, there's still a chance that you'll lose. But guess what? Your chance of walking away from the gaming table to find something else to do will drop to almost zero. Even if you're just rolling a saving throw every round to break free of Dominate Person, you're still doing something that is important to the combat and you're still engaged in the game. There's always the chance you can break free and contribute to the battle once more.
But as it stands right now, if you have a Fighter that gets Dominated or a Wizard that gets Feebleminded, the only thing you'll probably be doing is catching up on your reading, or perhaps playing some XBox 360 while everyone else gets to play Pathfinder.
Well, at least until their characters fail to roll a 17 or better, anyways. Then you all end up playing Halo 3.
I disagree.
Some of my favourite gaming memories are of when my characters got blasted to dust in fights. I always stayed at the table hanging on every word - I'd see it as rude to pick up a book since the game is about more than my character.
I've always taken some extra characters to a game, and I've always come armed with a plausible back-story as to why they could stumble across the party in the middle of a combat. As a DM, I've always come up with a way to integrate such, or let a player with a deceased take a villain or some mooks to run for the rest of the combat.
I don't buy the argument about multiple chances and dice rolls being better than single roll save-or-die, when it comes down to it, it is ALWAYS a single dice roll that kills a character.
I _love_ the feeling of rolling that save dice against a disintegrate (old style), knowing that if I make it then the BBEG may have just run out of slaying spells.
I've said this in other threads - what we need is a simple system of customising the game so that we can have save-or-die, save-or-(ability)-damage or save-save-save as options that the DM and players can choose at the start of the game. So Flesh-to-Stone says save or be petrified (see table 1) and table 1 says petrified means turned to stone (save or die) / lose 2d6 DEX (save or damage) / slowed, paralysed, petrified (one save per round). I think that is the only way to cater for all of the strongly held opinions being expressed on what is the one-true-way to handle powerful spells.
|
|
You know, most often when people throw around such concepts as "Smart Play" or "Stupid Play", they actually mean: "People who know how to min-max their characters and people who don't". You don't teach "smart play" by routinely killing PCs who engage monsters because they're roleplaying their characters -- most often you'll only have less players in your group after such incidents.
To further elaborate: this a role-playing game, right? In which you play a character, and try to keep "meta-gaming" to the minimum, i.e. so that even if Joe the Player knows that the hooded figure in a cavern filled with statues is most likely a Medusa, Joehar the Fighter would most likely not know it (even if he was not an idiot), unless he has ranks in appropriate skills. And if you ask me, any player who *only* protects his character's interests and uses "meta-gaming" to do something like: "You know, I know that's a Bodak, and since my guy's Fort save is so low, I'll withdraw to the previous room. Good luck, guys!" would be kicked out of my group.If I wanted to play a game that encourages tactical play and character preservation over role-playing, I'd grab a boardgame or buy the 4E books.
If you want combat to feel "frightening" and "chaotic" to your players, try Rolemaster, MERP, or Riddle of Steel. But please don't claim that such things, as constant factors, was an intended effect in 3E. I like my D&D to be fair, balanced and "heroic" -- at least most of the time.
You know, there's a reason a lot heroes in real life get their awards posthumously. Being a hero can be extremely dangerous. Rushing in heroically, knowing there's no insta-kill effects or things that might take you out in a single round thanks to the way saves are handled or because you can ablate away a lot of hit points isn't exactly free of metagaming.
I like that there is tension and danger in the game, but when I'm role-playing D&D, I also want to feel *heroic*, at least most of the time. I want my fighter to be able to slay dragons and archmages ; or at least being able to face them in fair combat, without having to stress about being panicked or dominated or charmed every round (with minimal chance of success to resist such effects). I slew dragons and giants and liches in AD&D -- now I can't do that, unless my friends spend a couple of minutes "boosting" me.
I'm not asking for "auto-saves" -- I'm asking for a *fair* fighting chance each round (at least 50% possibility to succeed, or maybe even a new save per round -- i.e. "save ends"-mechanic in 4E).
I play to have fun and to feel *heroic* -- if I wanted "realistic" and/ or "grim'n'gritty" combat, I would play WFRP, Riddle of Steel, Rolemaster, MERP, or Harn.
|
|
I prefer the chance I might lose... what good is a game if I know I'm going to win? Might as well just rent the movie.
I don't think you usually play RPGs to "win" or "lose" -- you only "win" if everyone is having fun, right? Also, there's a world of difference between "a reasonable chance to succeed/fail" (let's say, 50%?) and "nigh-impossible to succeed" (5-10%). Especially if your character's life hangs on a single roll. And, there's no real tension there, if you know you're always almost guaranteed to fail... ever since we converted our highest-level party from AD&D to D&D, I've began more and more disillusioned with my fighter. He used to be the *leader* of his party, and now he's just the guy with the sword who's constantly begging the spellcasters for more and more "buffs", so that he won't completely suck at his job (the wizard is the real leader now in the party).
I can still "lose" a character and my character can still "win" over evil. I just want to throw my death spells around and have them be "Death" spells not "Kind of Mean" spells. Since I want death spells to be deadly I expect the ones I come against to be deadly too.
For me it's the difference in accomplishment. To say I triumphed over an arch lich that was throwing real "Death" spells around is completely different than saying I triumphed over an arch lich that threw out spells, "that could kill me in 3 or more rounds if I don't do anything before hand".
It's like playing a game on easy mode, of course you win... it doesn't mean anything, come back when you get through it on hardcore mode.
Now something I could fully agree to is that Death spells don't kill you until the end of the round, and that if someone can get to you and do "X" before that time is up you are saved. But I don't want it to be a multi round proccess, as that adds in more bookkeeping, "How many saves have you made? How many rounds has it been?".
IF we add in a mechanic so people get more saves then we should also add in one where the spell still does something if it fails to outright kill you, but that is being discussed in another thread I believe.
I'm opposed to to turning all the "save or die" spells into "save or be mildly inconvenienced for a round" spells.
Keep magic scary.
I like that there is tension and danger in the game, but when I'm role-playing D&D, I also want to feel *heroic*, at least most of the time. I want my fighter to be able to slay dragons and archmages ; or at least being able to face them in fair combat, without having to stress about being panicked or dominated or charmed every round (with minimal chance of success to resist such effects). I slew dragons and giants and liches in AD&D -- now I can't do that, unless my friends spend a couple of minutes "boosting" me.
I'm not asking for "auto-saves" -- I'm asking for a *fair* fighting chance each round (at least 50% possibility to succeed, or maybe even a new save per round -- i.e. "save ends"-mechanic in 4E).
I play to have fun and to feel *heroic* -- if I wanted "realistic" and/ or "grim'n'gritty" combat, I would play WFRP, Riddle of Steel, Rolemaster, MERP, or Harn.
And if that's the kind of game you want to play, that's fine. But don't try to say that players who take it a bit more tactically are metagaming more than you are. You're both depending on metagame aspects to play the sort of game you want to play.
|
|
I disagree.Some of my favourite gaming memories are of when my characters got blasted to dust in fights. I always stayed at the table hanging on every word - I'd see it as rude to pick up a book since the game is about more than my character.
I've always taken some extra characters to a game, and I've always come armed with a plausible back-story as to why they could stumble across the party in the middle of a combat. As a DM, I've always come up with a way to integrate such, or let a player with a deceased take a villain or some mooks to run for the rest of the combat.
I don't buy the argument about multiple chances and dice rolls being better than single roll save-or-die, when it comes down to it, it is ALWAYS a single dice roll that kills a character.
I _love_ the feeling of rolling that save dice against a disintegrate (old style), knowing that if I make it then the BBEG may have just run out of slaying...
I've said this in other threads - what we need is a simple system of customising the game so that we can have save-or-die, save-or-(ability)-damage or save-save-save as options that the DM and players can choose at the start of the game. So Flesh-to-Stone says save or be petrified (see table 1) and table 1 says petrified means turned to stone (save or die) / lose 2d6 DEX (save or damage) / slowed, paralysed, petrified (one save per round). I think that is the only way to cater for all of the strongly held opinions being expressed on what is the one-true-way to handle powerful spells.
Total agreement with you, brock. Especially the part about simple customization of a save-or-die, save-or-(ability)-damage or save-save-save. (Or even save-save-save-fudge-as-necessary, for people who don't want to lose their characters when the 3rd save fails... and I know they're out there, because I've gamed with types that get bent out of shape when their 3rd straight attack misses, let alone when their character's life or death is hanging in the balance). Personally, I don't think anything has the tension/relief as when you know your character's been targetted for a SOD/SOS and making the save. Or when you're the one casting it and your adversary JUST misses it.
I don't personally much care for the idea of multisaves, because A) it hurts the immediacy of the effect and instead extends it over multiple rounds B) which a GM would now have to keep track of in addition to everything else s/he already bookkeeps. And I definitely don't like just hashing everything out to blanket damage-- because as I've stated in other threads, IMHO that just kills a lot of the tasty flavor in favor of more raw numbers, (like we don't already have enough of those freefloating around.) But for those who enjoy that sort of thing, I think a chart like you've mentioned in this (and other) threads is about the best case scenario. Have a page near the front reserved for Gaming Styles where you can chart up variant ways of dealing with SOD/SOS rules.
My personal take is that if the prevailing mindset is "We have to do something about SOD/SOS because when my character's not doing anything/incapable of doing something, I'll get bored and go read a book or play a video game and overall not have fun," well, then it's not necessarily a system mechanics problem. At some point, whether by design of the story or a bad roll of the dice, a bad, incapacitating roll will very likely happen, and the only way to completely negate it is to nix the possibility that any player-character can be killed. And what fun would that be? If, however, the mindset is, "I don't want to hinge whether my character lives or dies on one roll," there should be ways around it without destroying the save mechanic and completely emasculating-- or killing the flavor of-- the spells in question. Action/Luck Points, Feats/Buffs to allow rerolls, or the like. Even Good GM Planning/Storytelling and Fiat bonuses might be possibilities, if the GM really wants to reward good play by characters who take the extra step of trying to be prepared.
My personal take is that if the prevailing mindset is "We have to do something about SOD/SOS because when my character's not doing anything/incapable of doing something, I'll get bored and go read a book or play a video game and overall not have fun," well, then it's not necessarily a system mechanics problem. At some point, whether by design of the story or a bad roll of the dice, a bad, incapacitating roll will very likely happen, and the only way to completely negate it is to nix the possibility that any player-character can be killed.
Yes, but we already have mechanics to protect against a single bad die roll from taking out your character (or a monster you are fighting)... They are called Hit Points.
Save or Die (or be incapacitated) spells circumvent that whole mechanic and throw the dynamics of the game out the window. Now instead of a monster wearing your HP down with attack after attack, a single die roll determines if you live or die... Even if you are fully buffed, at full HP and ready to fight!
That is what I think needs to be changed.
Further thought and reading recent posts has led me to a few thoughts I'd like to share.
1) I'd rather not see new mechanics such as re-rolls, action points, and the like entering the core rules. They are better served to us as options that groups can adopt or not at their leisure, rather than adding another wrinkle to basic rules.
2)I like the idea of the Improved feats for Fort, Ref, and Will. But as 1) points out, I'd rather see something other than a re-roll. Perhaps an additional +2 to the roll, and you don't fail on a natural 1. These feats should not be available until at least 10th level; otherwise, a poor save will supersede a good save. This would give a mundane counter to SoD effects at high level as well as give certain tough creatures a natural resistance to certain effects, and eliminate the die only on a 1 situation.
If feats such as these were added, I wouldn't mind the instant death, incapacitations as they are in 3.5.
However, it is still worth exploring alternatives on the spell side of things:
3) The current 10hp dmg/lvl, for these effects isn't appealing to me. I'd still strive for something better. For the Finger of Death spell for instance, I'd rather it stay as it was in 3.5, but the 1 roll effect has its hang-ups as has been pointed out here.
I would still like to see a more interesting concept such as on a failed save you drop into negative hps and dying. Originally, I stated you would take 1d6 hps per round, but I think I'm leaning more toward making it potentially more lethal than that. Perhaps on a failed save you would drop to -1d20 hps and dying, and take an additional 1d20 hps of damage per round. This would still have a chance of killing a victim outright, and most would die on the 2nd round. But it gives a chance for intervention, in some situations, which I think makes the experience more interesting. It doesn't add more book-keeping, as players who have characters in the negatives keep track of them anyway when laid low by other effects such as damage from weapons. Also, on a successful save I'd rather Finger of Death do something Necromantic... right now it does hp damage on a successful save which seems like Evocation to me. It would be more interesting IMO, if on a successful save you gain 1d4 negative levels and/or fatigue or something.
|
|
Yes, but we already have mechanics to protect against a single bad die roll from taking out your character (or a monster you are fighting)... They are called Hit Points.
Save or Die (or be incapacitated) spells circumvent that whole mechanic and throw the dynamics of the game out the window. Now instead of a monster wearing your HP down with attack after attack, a single die roll determines if you live or die... Even if you are fully buffed, at full HP and ready to fight!
That is what I think needs to be changed.
I completely, totally, utterly disagree.
Having everything based on HP is so DULL. It becomes video-game like. The bar draining away at the top of the screen while you pummel the BBEG with rockets.
Yes, a single dice roll can be the death of your character. The likely-hood of it depends entirely on what your character has done. These spells are SUPPOSED to circumvent that mechanic both for 'realism' (classic fantasy foes who can snuff out life at a whim) and so that we as players have to consider more than one thing.
Character death is often a good end to that characters story. There have only been a couple of characters that I have wanted raised over the last 25 years - somehow leaving the others dead seemed more fitting.
People seem to think that they have 'lost' if their character dies.
What I do agree with is that you, and a lot of other people, want things to change in a direction that I don't want to go, so I do hope that Jason finds a way to make us both happy by building some customisability into the rules.
What I currently intend to do is make the spells save-or-die, add an action dice system (awarded for good roleplaying or heroic acts), and allow an action dice to convert death to -ve spell level HP and dying.
|
|
Yes, but we already have mechanics to protect against a single bad die roll from taking out your character (or a monster you are fighting)... They are called Hit Points.
Save or Die (or be incapacitated) spells circumvent that whole mechanic and throw the dynamics of the game out the window. Now instead of a monster wearing your HP down with attack after attack, a single die roll determines if you live or die... Even if you are fully buffed, at full HP and ready to fight!
That is what I think needs to be changed.
With complete respect, I can see and even understand your point... I just don't feel as if they need to be changed. I like the element of risk that they add to the game, and I like that they urge characters to pre-plan and work together when they know they'll be facing creatures with SOD-style SLE's and attacks, or mages, in order to avoid those effects, rather than rushing headlong into danger because they automatically get a rules-enforced safety net. The fact that element of immediate and lethal danger has been stretched out to "round-ending save-to-end or get progressively worse until the real effect is reached" is one of the things I specifically don't care for in 4E.
Again, that's my opinion. But I think it's fair to say it's not a completely unpopular one.
So, no, I don't mind that SOD/SOS spells and SLE's circumvent HP's, really. And I don't really mind the binary affect/nothing nature of them, either. That's the whole point of them. IMHO, they're meant to be a different dynamic. They're meant to be incapacitating, deadly, terrible and mythical, and are obviously designed to be all-or-nothing shots, which is why a save usually negates them-- rather than causing partial damage-- and why so many of them only target single creatures. So there is a sort of checks and balances system with them, even if it sounds unfair to some because "one bad roll" can do in my character.
Action/Luck Points, Feats/Buffs to allow rerolls, or the like. Even Good GM Planning/Storytelling and Fiat bonuses might be possibilities, if the GM really wants to reward good play by characters who take the extra step of trying to be prepared.
I wouldn't mind something like this too. Action points are a very useful tool for ameliorating bad dice rolls, particularly when they give you re-rolls. Also, it then becomes up to the player to determine when and how to use them. Do they burn them now, trying to become un-dominated, or save them for later when they might be even more important?
But there comes a point when you have to accept that luck can still turn on you and that, no matter how you wish it wasn't happening, a die roll will end in your character's death. It maybe a successful crit from your opponent, it maybe the last in a succession of saves or even one save.
|
I play to have fun and to feel *heroic* -- if I wanted "realistic" and/ or "grim'n'gritty" combat, I would play WFRP, Riddle of Steel, Rolemaster, MERP, or Harn.
Probelm is, you're trying to take a system that is traditionally in the vein of the ones you cited, and turn it into something it never was. D&D has always been a rough game, even in 2e. Not for the feint of heart or the easily disuaded.
The only way it WASN'T like that in ages past is through fudging or hand-holding by the DM. Sorry, but that's the way it was.
Now everyone wants to play in a world made of gym mats, yeah, you can fall down, but no one REALLY gets hurt...
Meh...
|
|
I play to have fun and to feel *heroic* -- if I wanted "realistic" and/ or "grim'n'gritty" combat, I would play WFRP, Riddle of Steel, Rolemaster, MERP, or Harn.Probelm is, you're trying to take a system that is traditionally in the vein of the ones you cited, and turn it into something it never was. D&D has always been a rough game, even in 2e. Not for the feint of heart or the easily disuaded.
The only way it WASN'T like that in ages past is through fudging or hand-holding by the DM. Sorry, but that's the way it was.
Now everyone wants to play in a world made of gym mats, yeah, you can fall down, but no one REALLY gets hurt...
Meh...
These days I've got so little spare time, that if I participate in a campaign as a player, I sure don't wish to spend half the session familiarizing myself with the GM's comic book collection when I failed a single saving throw.
And, I don't know about you, but I recall that at least you had a fighting chance in AD&D. IIRC, my fighter had, what, about 40-65% chance to save against high-level magic back then, *regardless* of the source of the effect, versus 5-10% chance in 3E. Also, if I had THAC0 0, I knew that I would hit pretty much anything (excluding beings such as deities and great wyrms) by rolling 10, but unless I've thoroughly min-maxed my guy and/or have several "buffs" on, I barely hit a mid-level wizard with that roll in 3E. And to think that fighters usually had an advantage, when it came to the initiative, and could easily "disrupt" a spell -- now you need to ready a *single* attack against the wizard, who probably just "shrugs it off" with a successful Spellcraft check.
Yeah, if "more balanced" equals "gym mats", I'd surely like to get mine in 3E, too.
|
|
I play to have fun and to feel *heroic* -- if I wanted "realistic" and/ or "grim'n'gritty" combat, I would play WFRP, Riddle of Steel, Rolemaster, MERP, or Harn.Probelm is, you're trying to take a system that is traditionally in the vein of the ones you cited, and turn it into something it never was. D&D has always been a rough game, even in 2e. Not for the feint of heart or the easily disuaded.
The only way it WASN'T like that in ages past is through fudging or hand-holding by the DM. Sorry, but that's the way it was.
Now everyone wants to play in a world made of gym mats, yeah, you can fall down, but no one REALLY gets hurt...
Meh...
These days I've got so little spare time, that if I participate in a campaign as a player, I sure don't wish to spend half the session familiarizing myself with the GM's comic book collection when I failed a single saving throw.
And, I don't know about you, but I recall that at least you had a fighting chance in AD&D. IIRC, my fighter had, what, about 40-65% chance to save against high-level magic back then, *regardless* of the source of the effect, versus 5-10% chance in 3E. Also, if I had THAC0 0, I knew that I would hit pretty much anything (excluding beings such as deities and great wyrms) by rolling 10, but unless I've thoroughly min-maxed my guy and/or have several "buffs" on, I barely hit a mid-level wizard with that roll in 3E. And to think that fighters usually had an advantage, when it came to the initiative, and could easily "disrupt" a spell -- now you need to ready a *single* attack against the wizard, who probably just "shrugs it off" with a successful Spellcraft check.
Yeah, if "more balanced" equals "gym mats", I'd surely like to get mine in 3E, too.
This would be why I'm an advocate of showing the fighter (and the other physical classes) some love. I just don't want to have to nerf the wizard to do it. Why make several classes suck, when you can just make a couple better?
These days I've got so little spare time, that if I participate in a campaign as a player, I sure don't wish to spend half the session familiarizing myself with the GM's comic book collection when I failed a single saving throw.
Nonsense. That's what video game consoles are for! By the time combat is over, everyone will be playing Halo with you, and the game will have come to a complete, grinding halt. Fun stuff! LOL
This would be why I'm an advocate of showing the fighter (and the other physical classes) some love. I just don't want to have to nerf the wizard to do it. Why make several classes suck, when you can...
In order to achieve parity between these two classes, the Wizard needs to be nerfed a bit, and the Fighter needs to be buffed a bit. You can talk about "showing Fighters love" all you like, but I believe that until this combination of events comes to pass, Fighters won't get a fair shake under the 3.5 game system.
|
|
These days I've got so little spare time, that if I participate in a campaign as a player, I sure don't wish to spend half the session familiarizing myself with the GM's comic book collection when I failed a single saving throw.And, I don't know about you, but I recall that at least you had a fighting chance in AD&D. IIRC, my fighter had, what, about 40-65% chance to save against high-level magic back then, *regardless* of the source of the effect, versus 5-10% chance in 3E. Also, if I had THAC0 0, I knew that I would hit pretty much anything (excluding beings such as deities and great wyrms) by rolling 10, but unless I've thoroughly min-maxed my guy and/or have several "buffs" on, I barely hit a mid-level wizard with that roll in 3E. And to think that fighters usually had an advantage, when it came to the initiative, and could easily "disrupt" a spell -- now you need to ready a *single* attack against the wizard, who probably just "shrugs it off" with a successful Spellcraft check.
Yeah, if "more balanced" equals "gym mats", I'd surely like to get mine in 3E, too.
If too many more of the SOD/SOE spells get blanket-damage pansified (see Finger of Hit Point Removal; Disintegrate (if damage > opponent's HP); discussions of tier-effecting Flesh to Stone, Multisaves vs. Any Spell That Causes My Character to Be Out Of Game for Any Length of Time; 4th Edition), I'll very likely end up houseruling something that has some actual teeth, myself. I already plan on doing that for FoD, Disintegrate, and a few others, to bring them back to a former level of effectiveness.
What I'd really prefer to see is something that like there to be some sort of chart that allows for the groups that actually want to have the worry of SOD/SOE spells they can have it, and if a group is worried that will cause someone to plop down with a case of the pouts after failing vs. domination they can tier/dumb down/multisave/negate the effect. I doubt seriously that's going to happen at this point of the game construction, but maybe some 3rd party type will prep something up once PF's in full release. :shrug:
Oh, in 2E, yes, at 11th level a fighter had to roll an 8 or more to save against Petrification, for instance. But those saves never got to the point of ridiculously (I save on everything but a 1!) easy until 15th level or more, unless your DM was a total pushover and handed out magic items du jour for nothing. There was always close to a 50% or so chance to miss right up till 12th, and there were no "Kid Gloves" and HP hacks on the spells. Disintegrate didn't poo-poo you for HP damage and if you were dropped to zero THEN you were dusted. Finger of Death actually killed you, regardless of your health or lack thereof.
Of course, if a character back then actually got ashed with a Disintegrate spell, and the DM ruled that they couldn't be resurrected, then it would take 10 minutes tops to create a new character... unlike now, when a character has to be painstakingly built. Which I guess beggars the question: doesn't anyone bring backup characters with them so that if a character does die the GM can insert them in at the next opportunity and not force the person to sit twiddling their thumbs?
|
|
Please pardon my commenting after only reading about 1/3 of the posts in this thread, but I think that an SOD spell really should be just that.
If the game is balanced, then the characters will run into threats that are appropriate for their levels. High levels means high-stakes adventuring. "You betcha dupa" takes on a literal meaning at Epic levels. The GM really is the final arbiter of what a character will face. Usually, there will be sufficient clues to make a character with a decent WIS score back off. If he's really a dummy, well, then he's prolly gonna die.I think the range of spells, from pansy at first level to earth-shaking at the top is a good thing. I think, having been through 4 years of infantry combat, that it is quite realistic to expect some things to simply and instantly destroy you (and you don't *get* any saving throw).
Yes, Finger of Death, with a missed save, puts a character down, but how often does a character way below the caster's level get it cast at him?
I suppose part of my attitude comes from playing in a bunch of games where nobody thought much about trying to keep a single character alive from Level 1 to Immortal over years of play time. Taking a break for a drink or sandwich and whipping up a new character doesn't take very long and you can always make up two or three characters in advance (assuming that the DM will introduce them because the object is to *PLAY* not sit around).
I like "realism" in my games (and the games in which I play) but rather in the form of a living, breathing environment -- a world that has vivid and beliavable NPCs (from a simple peasant to scheming merchants and majestic dragonic rulers or paladin kings), wondrous locations and both tragic and heroic tales aplenty. That's why I GM and play -- to feel "heroic" and to give an opportunity to others to feel that way. "Realism" as per the rules has never been a strong suit in D&D, and I don't think it's never been a design goal either -- feeling "heroic" when I play, on the other hand, is what I'm after in D&D. If I wanted to play games in which PCs flee from orcs and dragons, and combat is "grim'n'gritty", I think I wouldn't be playing D&D at all.
Creating characters is easy, and you could indeed bring a lot of them to each session, but I see a few problems with this (I know that the guys in my group share these "concerns", but I can't say if they're commonly observed "problems"): firstly, if you bring another PC to a session, I feel that it sort of signals to the GM that "I'm fine with my guy being killed and I've prepared for it -- target him if someone must "go down" during the session". Secondly, I just can't feel attached to my character, if he's "one of the four" PCs I carry around (which was a common practise in 'Call of Cthulhu' -- you usually had three or four PCs prepared, because you lost PCs to deaths and insanity *often*) and it affects my role-playing. Thirdly, the GMs and PCs often have difficulties with introducing "new" characters in the middle of a session, such as in a dungeon -- why and where did that character suddenly appear? How can the other PCs *trust* him/her, because automatically accepting a new member without any suspicions is a "meta-gaming" decision on part of the players ("this is a new PC, so we can absolutely trust him/her"). A lot of problems there, and only good GMs can do it without any "cheap" and cliche explanations (such as teleporting PCs sent by NPCs to "help the party" or explanations about the PC "seeing some cool guys who entered a dungeon and deciding to follow them").
@topic: As I posted in another thread, the terraced effects of SOD/SOS is a fine idea in my opinion, but probability adds problems. The chance of being henceforth effected has to rise significantly in order to make it no auto success. In the other thread I recommended high penalties to consecutive saves (at least, attack and skill penalties are possible too) at a minimum of the level of spell.
EDIT: Sorry for the following rant...
@developed topic: Fighters need love, Mages need nerf. I stopped playing in a 3.0 group I've been from levels 1 to 27, because I prefer to play martial characters. Even my spell using ones were primary (self)-buffing melee types. Guess how the group composition changed during that? First couple of levels we agreed to play middle-low magic. The only full caster we had was a necromancer who had abandoned evocation and transmutation the rest were melee-types. Worked very well, the fights were typically full of tension and quests were easy to handle for the GM.
20 levels later someone cast reverse gravity on this group.
There is only one real fighter in there and even this character casts spells through the (in 3.0 way too cheap) ioun stones more often than he uses his axe (I'm exaggerating, but not much) and he is constantly overwhelmed in combat by the druid and the cleric while the wizards/wizard-rogue are blasting away the last enemies in reach.
I confess we are using splatbooks. Two did real evil things to the group: Epic level Handbook and Magic of Faerun. Even with their martial pendants the splatbooks favor casters over fighters beyond repair.
So what's the morale of the story: Pathfinder tries hard but is to lose his fight for parity, because of the splatbook madness. But tuning down casters in core rules a bit and bringing fighters up some steps could bring some balance to that. Casters are inferior beginning level 13 up. But they are equal to fighters by levels 7 to 13. That's 6 levels of fighter dominating and infinite ones of casters, rendering melee types useless at some point, even with core rules only(not including encounters designed for fighters, sadly that had to be done by my DMs)
Honestly I prefer a putting down numbers entirely, how 4E did (but it has gone too far I believe). But naturally the cutdown for casters has to be bigger, since they were blasted over the top at some point. That added no tension to the game. It's just waiting for the BBEG to fall prey to the druid or mage while hoping for the meleers not to be decapitated. Maybe my experience is extreme but looking at min/maxing boards I find much more caster builds than any other.
SOD/SOS are not a balance problem, they are just boring both when failing and when succeeding. Maybe the first occur of it is thrilling, the third one isn't. It's just annoying on one side or the other.