My guess would be multiple attacks can still do damage even if some miss. Save or suck spells generally don't do much if the enemy saves. If you can use a spell that the enemy cant save against, isn't that better than a spell they can save against?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ran a module the other day. It was fun, flavorful, and things were going well. The party was handling the regular encounters well, with a few good hits in from the other side. (Polymorphing the sorcerer into a songbird was amusing.) Then they got to the last fight.
A squad of six devils with a devil commander behind him. I was looking forward to watching them handle the encounter tactically. The sorcerer was having none of it. One dazing chain lightning and all seven opponents failed. I then proceeded to narrate the rest of the module, because nothing else was going to challenge them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
-Its too simple. Combat is tactical. You have the movement, attacks of opportunity, dashing around the board, terrain, positioning flanking, its a complicated, integrated and interesting series of mechanics. Save or die is just one roll and you win.
-There isn't really a great counter. If your monsters die too quickly you can add armor and hitpoints without too much trouble. Nothing you do within the rules is really going to let them make two dc 25 saves off of the persistent dazing black tentacles. Always have mooks in between you and the entrance.
-It doesn't work as a team. If pouncekitty is doing hit point damage and you're doing hitpoint damage then you and pouncekitty work together to take things down. If they're being turned into turtledoves on init 15 then you whacking them with a sword on init 20 was kinda meaningless.
A pouncing barb/archer/gunslinger/fighter/animal companion can all 1 shot most targets while save or suck/dies do the same thing it's just the GM rolling the dice.
Unlike a pouncing barbarian, SoS spells can affect multiple targets across a wider area.
Devastating martial attacks can be partly negated. "Due to Stoneskin and Mirror Image you only did minor damage to him." With SoS, it's usually all or nothing.
I wonder if the dislike of save or suck spells corresponds with preferred class demographics? I, for example love magic users and save or suck spells but find straight up damage dealing monotonous.
I'm not a fan of all-or-nothing abilities. I much prefer M&Ms system of degreed success and failure. The save DCs are higher, but failing in the "just failed" bracket merely reduces your save a little until your next rest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the flip side, we all come to the table to play and have fun. One bad die roll and you're done for the night if the BBEG's save or suck hits you. This can happen from a well-designed martial brute of a boss, but you have more control over the odds of that happening. A spell of the SOS category could wipe you out without you getting a chance to do much of anything about it. YOu can always improve your AC, get a cloak of displacement or armor with fortification, take Toughness, etc. to survive the martial boss. And he likely has to hit multiple times. That wizard doesn't like you? Well, now you're a turtle. Why? You've boosted your saves, sure, but even if you somehow have relevant SR, he's taken feats to work through it, has higher caster levels than you anyway, uses magic to boost his caster levels, etc. Really reduces interactions to "yup, I'm done, let me know when the cleric fixes me, I'm gonna go pick up the pizza".
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because they're big anti-climaxes.
"And then the villain died. The end."
Save or suck, as a spell it's a standard action(mostly) and a spell slot. One sucesfull save and it's wasted. Turn and spell slot wasted.
Buff and field control spells do their thing no matter what. Turn and spell slot well spent.If the SoS is sucesfull enough it just feels like i'm pushing the "to win" button and when it doesn't work I'm just worthless.
Damage out-put is based on more rolls and it's easier to upping the success rate, by buff spells etc. All in all more reliable, I feel like.
That's the difference to me, at least.
Pretty much this. Save Or Suck casters are either One-Man-Bands or a total waste of a character slot. Control casters who's stuff works with or without a save are much better for everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But not hate doing incredible damage that 1 shots the target?
A pouncing barb/archer/gunslinger/fighter/animal companion can all 1 shot most targets while save or suck/dies do the same thing it's just the GM rolling the dice.
So yeah why do people hate save or sucks but not hate high damage?
Just for the record, I think Pouncing Barbarians, juggling gunslingers, Falchion Fred's, and other 100+ DPR at level 10 characters are pretty lame. Nothing wrong with optimizing, but using a theoretical optimization build as a PC is in my opinion, against the spirit of the game, and not very creative.
Save or Suck is lame because it essentially bypasses the point of combat; to overcome challenging opponents. Save or suck means the difference between a badass fight, and beating up a blind guy who can barely fight back.
To get a little more into it, the AD&D magic user was a super wimp who threw darts and pee'd himself for the first several levels, but was later rewarded with the ability to occasionally destroy encounters in the later levels. BAD game design. Over the years, they made casters fun and powerful at the lower levels, and able to cast spells or use spell items all day long, but while damage scaled over the editions, save-or-suck did not, and should not remain encounter destroying if it is not a limited resource.
EDIT: I should note that I love spells like ray of enfeeblement, enervation, slow, etc that take the edge off, but still allow an opponent a chance. I don't like things that deny players or monsters actions. It is OK to be beaten in combat, but it isn't fun to lose your ability to participate. It feels like someone defeated the rules system of the game, rather then the monster or character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not much I can say other than to echo everyone else. It reduces combat to "Roll a d20. If you roll well, you win. If you roll poorly, you lose."
That reminds me of another AD&D aspect that got dropped from later additions - nasty side effects from spell casting. Fireball would damage friends if your volume calculations were off, haste aged you a year per casting, some spells cost XP, etc. And Wish? No mortal would be foolish enough to use a wish spell without extensive consultation with a lawyer!
If there was a "you lose!" effect for a monster making the save (or SR) there would be a real drawback. As it is, you just keep casting spells or using items, with little worry about running out.
If there was a "you lose!" effect for a monster making the save (or SR) there would be a real drawback. As it is, you just keep casting spells or using items, with little worry about running out.
On one hand, this would be even worse than it is currently. On the other hand, it would mean people stop playing save or suck casters, so it's not a terrible idea all in all.
As the caster of save or sucks:
If I'm not optimized to beat SR and saves, it fails. If I'm not hyper-focused, it fails. There are other spells that have an effect on a successful save, are SR: No, or other things that make them useful even if I don't pour all my focus into it. I basically gamble my one useful action a turn (and usually a good spell slot) on a single die roll. That's... terrible. Especially since a 20 always succeeds on a save. That's not including monsters immune to my main trick.
If you did need to be optimized and hyper focused, it would provide a type of balance, but you can have a decent success rate just building a generic caster, and consistently hit well above the parties APL if you do optimize. As a caster, you often have the option of choosing which save to target, or bypass saves and going for a touch attack, and/or avoiding SR entirely, or even doing something different with your spells. You also have the option of lowering monsters defenses of your choosing. If you are able to target a weak save you generally have a better then 50% chance of turning the encounter into a mop-up session. And if you fail, many of the spells DO have a partial effect. Also, you generally have a few more chances before falling back on lower level spells, or staff charges, or wands, or scrolls, pearls of power, etc.
I basically gamble my one useful action a turn (and usually a good spell slot) on a single die roll. That's... terrible.
Except, it really isn't terrible at all. It is what most melee characters put themselves in direct danger for every round, with less expectation of results then almost any SoS spell. Also, your odds of ending the encounter are pretty decent, often with very little risk or resource expenditure.
Are you really asking that your standard action that ends the encounter be a forgone conclusion?
You can boost the DC so that most monsters have a greater than 50% chance of failing but many of these spells have monsters that are immune to them as you level up more. However there is a metamagic feat that forces you to roll the save twice and take the lower roll. I just cant remember the name right now but it is in the APG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe a big part of it is that it can be immersion jarring when one saving throw has the ability to just end things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Save or Suck is one of those things I find is best adjudicated by the DM more than the dice (although the dice should handle most 'doesn't really matter' scenarios). It's a test of how tuned a game world is, as well as a test of positive control the DM has over the players.
Let the players control themselves and neglectfully allow them to get too powerful, and you'll never threaten them in the slightest, SoS or otherwise. Vice versa, don't hose them with saving throws or they're going to get frustrated and seek self-control to become immune.
As I say. First rule of DM'ing. Never let the players know you're cheating. Rule number two: Cheat liberally to keep things fun. Rule Three: Never allow a player/character to become powerful enough to defeat the DM.
They can be very anti-climatic...
I remember once back in the 3.5 day.... we came up against the BBEG that that part of the campaign had been building up to for about 2 months. First chance my cleric got he laid a Harm down on him...... took him from 250 HP to 2 HP in one fell swoop...
Part of me at the time was really hoping he made the save... he didnt and it really was a big let down for the whole party... my DM should have just 'tweaked' the dice!!
|
Save or Suck/Die abilities follow the Power Rangers rule at my table: Do not be the first to escalate.
The reason is, as many others have said, that they lie so far outside of both the mechanical and narrative structures that other aspects of the system attempt to create that they become downright uninteresting to use despite their effectiveness. If you use Save or Suck/Die abilities, no-one is having fun.
If there was some verisimilitude-preserving way of making them only useful outside of combat (other than increasing time requirements) they would be great. Put that guard to sleep so you can sneak in? Awesome! Put the BBEG to sleep then CdG him? Lame!
You have a few wild misconceptions here. First, ...more
1) You are correct, I was under the wild misconception that we were talking about spells that made you suck after a failed save, AND those that made you suck after a failed save, and included a small penalty for a successful save. I stand corrected.
2) You don't need two feats increasing your DC in order to be effective. You just need a high casting stat, a general idea of the best type of spell to use against a creature, and some spell penetration for the mid to late levels. If you do specialize, there are all kinds of additional options and benefits for doing so, and you can still craft items, take improved initiative, etc. If you do need to lower a monsters saves, there are many ways to do that. If you need to bump up your DCs, there are ways to do that too.3) The part where I can cast my highest level spell 5 times at 10th level. (2 for 10th, +1 Int bonus, +1 school or domain, arcane bond) Then cast my next highest level spell 5 times, then cast my next 5 times, etc. So as a 10th level caster, I could go 10 rounds casting 4th and 5th level spells ONLY, and still have all my 3rd and lower level spells, items, etc.
Most melee characters are not expected to end the encounter with a single dice roll.
I don't ask any class to consistently end encounters with a single die roll. I consider "rocket tag" to be not fun, and bad game design. YMMV.
EDIT: As for hold person - I can't really think of anything better in core for a cleric to memorize as a second level spell slot or two. Almost all the 2nd level spells are buff spells and status removal spells that are better as wands or scrolls. And you have like 7 slots for 2nd level spells. Hold person is perfect for taking prisoners or whacking that burly hill giant body guard. With little effort, it is basically an auto-death on a failed save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also consider that they are something that can not be used by the GM. I mean how many people would rage quit a game if they were killed because of one bad save and there was nothing to be done about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cheating without the players knowing is not easy vs veteran players especially if they also GM from side time to time.
They might not be able to always prove you are "cheating" but that does not mean they dont know it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My question is why is the BBEG vulnerable to most save or die/sucks? There are so many spells available many of which are low level (1-4) and negate entire schools of magic. The mooks can get "We're not the party you're looking for, move along." but the boss punches you in the face through protection from X or something similar.Save or Suck/Die abilities follow the Power Rangers rule at my table: Do not be the first to escalate.
The reason is, as many others have said, that they lie so far outside of both the mechanical and narrative structures that other aspects of the system attempt to create that they become downright uninteresting to use despite their effectiveness. If you use Save or Suck/Die abilities, no-one is having fun.
If there was some verisimilitude-preserving way of making them only useful outside of combat (other than increasing time requirements) they would be great. Put that guard to sleep so you can sneak in? Awesome! Put the BBEG to sleep then CdG him? Lame!
Because it's lame. The DM shouldn't have to deck the BBEG out with every kind of automatic-immunity effect known to man just to keep a decent story. And you certainly can't do that absolutely every time or it just feels lazy.
Besides, not all effects can be immunized against so easily. The Slumber hex, for example, can only be negated 100% by being a type that can't be put to sleep, such as an Elf, Undead, or Construct. You can't make every BBEG be one of those things. Not even protection from evil works since that has been clarified to only affect spells/effects that give you commands (which sleep does not).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because they're big anti-climaxes.
"And then the villain died. The end."
I think you're missing the OP's point. Both SoS and massive damage one-round melee/gun/archery kills are equally anti-climactic. So why is it that the same people who hate on SoS spells so often have no problem with a Magus walking up and one-shotting the BBEG with his scimitar? Or the Gunslinger Ricochet Shotting it to death before anyone else has acted? Or the optimized evoc sorcerer intensified shocking grasping it to death with his Empower rod and his Spell Specialization?
I think it's a really good question, because to me both outcomes are equally annoying, and most RAW, optimization heavy games feature almost nothing but these kinds of anti-climaxes. The so called "rocket tag" syndrome. Why doesn't this bother the crap out of more people? And, more specifically, why does rocket tag bother the crap out of many people when it happens because of a SoS but not when it happens because of ridiculously massive damage?
|
|
Because they're big anti-climaxes.
"And then the villain died. The end."
I think you're missing the OP's point. Both SoS and massive damage one-round melee/gun/archery kills are equally anti-climactic. So why is it that the same people who hate on SoS spells so often have no problem with a Magus walking up and one-shotting the BBEG with his scimitar? Or the Gunslinger Ricochet Shotting it to death before anyone else has acted? Or the optimized evoc sorcerer intensified shocking grasping it to death with his Empower rod and his Spell Specialization?
I think it's a really good question, because to me both outcomes are equally annoying, and most RAW, optimization heavy games feature almost nothing but these kinds of anti-climaxes. The so called "rocket tag" syndrome. Why doesn't this bother the crap out of more people? And, more specifically, why does rocket tag bother the crap out of many people when it happens because of a SoS but not when it happens because of ridiculously massive damage?
Both are anti-climactic, sure, but there are two key differences between the two scenarios:
First, if captain-alpha-strike misses with one or more of his attacks and doesn't finish the BBEG, someone else can step up to finish the job, even though neither would have killed the boss on their own. This means teamwork. With SoD effects it either works and the fight is over, or it doesn't and you didn't help at all.
Second, it's a lot easier to compensate for high damage output than SoD. Worst case scenario, you pump up HP values. With SoD there will *always* be that 5% chance that it works short of strict immunity, and there is only so often you can employ strict immunity before it starts to break the mood.
EDIT: Third difference is that SoD is can happen even if you aren't even close to optimized, captain-alpha-strike generally only happens in optimized situations.
I'm also willing to bet that the RAW heavily optimized game is a VERY small percentage of games. I find that often the people who seem to know the most about optimization do it for theory crafting, but only do it in real play to pull off odd builds that are hardly considered, "powerful".
Save or suck is boring. It takes any and all thrill or excitement out of the game, bringing everything down to a single die roll that's essentially indefensible. No tactics, no planning, no buildup ...
Yeah, perhaps a barbarian or whatever can one-shot things, but he actually has to expend some resources to do it, building his character to be able to do so, and having weaknesses as a result. Any idiot can just go 'oh, hey, I'll prep three Color Sprays' (or whatever). It takes no effort.
I wonder if the dislike of save or suck spells corresponds with preferred class demographics? I, for example love magic users and save or suck spells but find straight up damage dealing monotonous.
Not universally, at least. I play spellcasters of some stripe almost exclusively, and I absolutely loathe SoDs.
Somehow buffing the monster is lame when it involves SoS or SoD but not when it's buffing HP or other defenses, and there will always be a 5% chance the bad guy is just dead or the small chance of triple 20's Permakilling some major setting BBEG.
It's different because if you buff up the monster's HP to survive a hit from a martial character then the martial still did something of value on their turn; a monster buffed up to no longer fear an SoD from the caster just ensures the caster doesn't get to participate in the combat. Raising difficulty for the martial makes the game more fun for the martial (or at least doesn't seriously affect it), not so for the SoD caster.
But not hate doing incredible damage that 1 shots the target?
A pouncing barb/archer/gunslinger/fighter/animal companion can all 1 shot most targets while save or suck/dies do the same thing it's just the GM rolling the dice.
So yeah why do people hate save or sucks but not hate high damage?
I hate both those things.
IMHO pounce being a thing on the PC side of the screen was a terrible design decision.
- Torger
But not hate doing incredible damage that 1 shots the target?
A pouncing barb/archer/gunslinger/fighter/animal companion can all 1 shot most targets while save or suck/dies do the same thing it's just the GM rolling the dice.
So yeah why do people hate save or sucks but not hate high damage?
I hate both those things.
IMHO pounce being a thing on the PC side of the screen was a terrible design decision.
- Torger
Even it out then. If you're going to screw over martials by making them rely on the move or attack dichotomy the badguys should be equally hampered.
They may be anticlimactic, but they're certainly memorable when you get flat-out lucky.
Was in a game where a sorcerer cast prismatic ray, it came up fort or die vs a boss with a fort so high he couldn't possibly fail without a natural one.
Natural one.
The whole table went bananas! I didn't feel useless just cause someone else nailed a disgustingly huge mob with one round before it could even act. I was too busy cheering for my party mate.
The GM was a little annoyed, but you know what? Five players to one GM say it was a great memory.
Besides, she murdered a player like two sessions later with a save or die death effect trap, so it kinda balanced out. Actually, it was my character, and I didn't whine, I just realized that was par for the course in a higher level game.
Even it out then. If you're going to screw over martials by making them rely on the move or attack dichotomy the badguys should be equally hampered.But not hate doing incredible damage that 1 shots the target?
A pouncing barb/archer/gunslinger/fighter/animal companion can all 1 shot most targets while save or suck/dies do the same thing it's just the GM rolling the dice.
So yeah why do people hate save or sucks but not hate high damage?
I hate both those things.
IMHO pounce being a thing on the PC side of the screen was a terrible design decision.
- Torger
Meh if PCs and monsters were on a 1:1 power ratio I would agree with you but it's pretty uncommon that a monster having pounce means a PC gets one round death blendered.
Note I said monsters not NPCs. If PC martials don't get access to punce than neither NPCs.
On the other hand PCs having pounce means exactly that happening all the time.
I don't mind the occasionally one round lucky victory out of the PCs, that's fine. But all the time starts to get old and power building vs standard encounters gets you there with very little effort.
- Torger
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I agree with the green tea gamer
A certain scenario involves a very lethal magus. My bard isn't optimised or anything, so I was just going for damage with sound burst.
Natural one brings us one dead magus as the rest of the party comes in to take advantage of the stunned magus.
No one was happy to see shocking grasp scimitar boy in combat. No one complained about not having fun.
We see more complaints about "hug it to death" Tetori monks in single fights than my witch.
for save or suck spells, enemies always roll 10's, bosses roll 15's. let the player's know this, it makes save or suck spells less random and more understandable that they only will be really effective on people who are weaker than you.
Also consider that they are something that can not be used by the GM. I mean how many people would rage quit a game if they were killed because of one bad save and there was nothing to be done about it.
I dont think attitude is common. However I don't think a GM should spam a spell because a low roll will come up.
Cheating without the players knowing is not easy vs veteran players especially if they also GM from side time to time.
They might not be able to always prove you are "cheating" but that does not mean they dont know it.
Is the GM going to cheat to make her own save or sucks fail? No, she won't use the save or suck. The PCs are unaware of this though.
Because they're big anti-climaxes.
"And then the villain died. The end."
I think you're missing the OP's point. Both SoS and massive damage one-round melee/gun/archery kills are equally anti-climactic. So why is it that the same people who hate on SoS spells so often have no problem with a Magus walking up and one-shotting the BBEG with his scimitar? Or the Gunslinger Ricochet Shotting it to death before anyone else has acted? Or the optimized evoc sorcerer intensified shocking grasping it to death with his Empower rod and his Spell Specialization?
I think it's a really good question, because to me both outcomes are equally annoying, and most RAW, optimization heavy games feature almost nothing but these kinds of anti-climaxes. The so called "rocket tag" syndrome. Why doesn't this bother the crap out of more people? And, more specifically, why does rocket tag bother the crap out of many people when it happens because of a SoS but not when it happens because of ridiculously massive damage?
The save is just one roll. That is all it takes, and you don't even need to be optimized to pull it off.
The alpha strike character is almost never in play and requires a lot of optimization, and at least decent rolls to pull off. If someone builds a character with a lot of damage in my games I can up the hit points, add DR, up AC, add fortification armor, etc etc, and Mr Alphastrike is no longer Mr.Alphastrike, but a nat 1 on a save is not so easy to overcome. Yes, there abilities that allow rerolls, but it looks suspicious if everyone can rerolls. Giving everyone more hit points are higher AC is not as much of a big deal to most people.
There is also a difference between "one rounding" someone, and killing them with one roll. That "one roll" is what many do not like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
for save or suck spells, enemies always roll 10's, bosses roll 15's. let the player's know this, it makes save or suck spells less random and more understandable that they only will be really effective on people who are weaker than you.
Saying this up front makes it better, but I think players should get the same benefit. The GM has more NPC's than players have characters.
Is the GM going to cheat to make her own save or sucks fail? No, she won't use the save or suck. The PCs are unaware of this though.Cheating without the players knowing is not easy vs veteran players especially if they also GM from side time to time.
They might not be able to always prove you are "cheating" but that does not mean they dont know it.
I mean cheating against the PC's, but even cheating in their favor can be picked up on, if the GM is trying too hard to avoid a TPK.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a player has to question why "Save or Suck" abilities are a pain, then all I have to say to them is this: Get affected by one or two, and everything will fall into place.
Save or Suck doesn't have to be about instakills. It's also about gimping a fight to no longer be challenging. Imagine your frontline fighter being turned into either another, brutal enemy to fight. Or a sheep. So now instead of there being 0 lambs to the slaughter, that now becomes 2-4 (because that essentially makes you the next lamb to be chopped up).
Or better yet, imagine your awesome wizard casting a spell, and then you notice it doesn't work, and you're powerless because a Dragon with Anti-Magic Field walked up to you and said " 'Sup bro, watcha' doin' over here?" Ironically enough, it's not even a Save or Suck, it's just a Suck thing.