PDA

View Full Version : Is this a horrible game-breaking houserule?



BRC
2009-01-18, 10:35 PM
There is a Houserule I like to use, put simply, certain "Boss" enemies (Clearly identified as such if the rule would apply, and it's usually fairly obvious anyway), will automatically succeed on any Saving throws for Save or Die and Save or Lose spells until they have fairly low HP. My reasoning for this is that it's not much fun for everybody to prep for a big epic fight , only for it to be over in one round because the baddie rolled a 1 on their will save. If the MBEG is at low health anyway though, I go with the roll. The point is that, if the players want to fight the encounter, they should actually fight it. Of course, the spells work just fine on mooks and the like.

At the same time, I try to avoid Save-or Die/lose spells against my PC's, for the very same reason. Oh sure, the smartest thing would be for the bad guy to just use a Save-or-Die on the PC, but that's not very much fun. It's also helped that none of my PC's play Batman-esque characters in the first place, so it rarely comes up. But my question is, what do you think about this idea? Obviously, it won't work for many groups, but does it add or detract from the game?

Grail
2009-01-18, 10:37 PM
I assume the players know about this. If they do, then fine. What you could do though, is have Save or Die spells simply deal damage instead, like what happened with Disintergrate.

Saint Nil
2009-01-18, 10:37 PM
I think its a good rule. Villlains are supposed top be powerful, epic, and memerable. You might allow it as a way to finish them off, but I see nothing wrong with it as it just makes the fight tougher without breaking it.

Hat-Trick
2009-01-18, 10:39 PM
To be honest, I'D use it for the exact same reasons you do. Whether it's balanced or not, that's another story.

Thorin
2009-01-18, 10:41 PM
It depends... U could surely warn them somehow and make them be ready for a Save-or-die spell (buy itmes, be buffed, etc.)

It can be game-breaking if they just kill the MBEG.... but sure: it could be just a decay, an illusion; or just be buffed or have an item to prevent such scenario

Nevertheless, U SHOULD let them kill in one-shot a boss SOMETIME. It fills the players with pride when they see the big-threatening enemy die in one action

wadledo
2009-01-18, 10:41 PM
If you want it to be "fair", just make a template that lets them reroll X/day saves that would other wise bring the character down to -10 or death.
Otherwise, that's completely fine, and probably something all DM's should consider using.

BRC
2009-01-18, 10:42 PM
I assume the players know about this. If they do, then fine. What you could do though, is have Save or Die spells simply deal damage instead, like what happened with Disintergrate.
They do, and if they try to use a Save-or-Die/Lose spell on a "boss" monster that hasn't reached the HP threshold, I tell them that the enemy will make it's saving throw, so it's not like I'm tricking them into wasting spells/turns casting spells I know will fail. The way I see it, it's less about making the fight tougher, and more about ensuring that the fight Happens. That's why I let the spells work for finishing enemies off, because the fight has occurred, everybody has contributed.

Inyssius Tor
2009-01-18, 10:47 PM
I'd prefer that a spell do something interesting if the guy failed his save. Turn him partially to stone. Banish him partially to the Positive Energy Plane. Leave him with a pissed-off Phantasmal Killer clinging to his neck for the next couple of rounds. Partially disjunct his enchanted sword, rendering the sword useless at cutting anything but leaving the unraveling enchantment to lash out across the room with now-uncontained destructive energy. That sort of thing.

But this would work. I just think that giving the players some incentive to try it would be cool.

BRC
2009-01-18, 10:49 PM
I'd prefer that a spell do something interesting if the guy failed his save. Turn him partially to stone. Banish him partially to the Positive Energy Plane. Leave him with a pissed-off Phantasmal Killer clinging to his neck for the next couple of rounds. Partially disjunct his enchanted sword, rendering the sword useless at cutting anything but leaving the unraveling enchantment to lash out across the room with now-uncontained destructive energy. That sort of thing.

But this would work. I just think that giving the players some incentive to try it would be cool.
Yes, but then you need to houserule a Partial effect for every save or Die/Lose effect in the game. What happens when one is "Partially" turned to stone.

Inyssius Tor
2009-01-18, 10:52 PM
Oh no. Way too much trouble. Situational, too; what works for one guy wouldn't make much cinematic sense for another. Ad-hoc it.

Dunno if your players would be cool with that, but I would be.

EDIT: Doesn't have to be a partial effect, either. Maybe instead of being partially petrified, he catches it and discharges the energy in a thirty-foot burst--negating that pool of lava which he's immune to (although it'll melt eventually), or petrifying his minions (and hindering your front-line guy), or turning his sleek mythril armor to hindering stone (too bad he's almost as effective without it).

AmberVael
2009-01-18, 10:53 PM
This is a rule I can get behind. Really, epic fights that end in one round because someone rolled low are kinda boring, you know?

Morandir Nailo
2009-01-18, 10:58 PM
I'm weird, but I don't have a problem with save-or-dies, on either side. If the PCs take out my "big-scary-uber-bad-ZOMG-isn't-he-awesome" monster in one round, so be it. Likewise, if they encounter a Beholder and decide to fight it, they're in danger of being disintegrated or turned to stone, and they know it. If they don't want the risk they can always run away.

However, I know the kids don't take to this kind of play anymore (too many of them vidja games with their saves and multiple lives, says I). A rule that seems interesting to me is to have a SoD spell take you to -(spell level) HP instead of automatic death. The spell still incapacitates you, but you have a chance of survival. It's a decent compromise. Doesn't help the BBEG much, but things like Death Ward and Contingency spells are useful there.

Mor

RTGoodman
2009-01-18, 11:00 PM
I like the intent, but I don't like the "automatic saves" aspect of it. How about instead, BBEGs and other boss-type monsters gain scaling bonuses on saving throws versus the kinds of things you're talking about. Something like:

{table=head]Hit Points Remaining | Bonus to Saves
75-100% | +8
50-74% | +4
25-49% | +2
24% or less | +0[/table]

That still gives PCs a CHANCE, at least, to try to silence the bad guy quickly with one risky spell. There's a certain risk factor involved ("Do I use my last phantasmal killer now, or try to beat him up a little more to make it more certain?"), but it still gives PCs a tiny chance to barge into a room and zap the bad guy as he's giving his big monologue if that's the kind of thing they're into.

If those bonuses don't seem high enough for your particularly party (they have beefed up save DCs, etc.), you can increase them to +20/+10/+5 or anywhere in between.

AmberVael
2009-01-18, 11:05 PM
However, I know the kids don't take to this kind of play anymore (too many of them vidja games with their saves and multiple lives, says I).

That's a rather bad generalization. While it may be amusing or entertaining to see Jones whip out his gun on the sword wielding badass and cap him instantly, one shot encounters lack of a lot of tension and drama that fights could otherwise have.

Now, it's possible for fights to be short and exciting/dramatic/entertaining, but often a single "he fails his save" kinda takes the excitement out of it. Metaphorically, save or die spells are buttons that have chances of either saying "you win" or "try again." It's like using cheat codes, or flipping a coin- it's difficult to make it interesting.

It's not necessarily a lack of lethality that is desired- it's more of a desire for tension, for drama and story telling. I'll take Westley's duel with Inigo Montoya over a one-shot-solved encounter any day.

zakk2to2
2009-01-18, 11:06 PM
as far as i am can tell this would make many of my video games funner. woo i killled bbeg! okay now what? <- just what normaly happens for me. honestly if a mage goes and disintigrates every boss they come to the others end up just twidling their collective thumbs and thats just not fair.

shadowfox
2009-01-18, 11:11 PM
Honestly, I'd have to agree (to an extent), but I'd never make it a house rule. I always use a DM screen (or otherwise hide my rolls, books, etc.), and I have issues with mental math, so it usually takes me a bit to add up rolls (though I usually get the answer right before I hit the "equals" button on my calculator. In essence, as a DM, and for the sake of epicness, I'd cheat. If HP was pretty low, where combat wouldn't last more than another round or two at the current rate, then, yes, I'd stop messing with results.

... But, if I will lie the results for rolls on said Saving Throws, how much different is it than telling your PCs that the BBEG will always pass a Saving Throw for Save-or-Die and Save-or-Lose spells (speaking of which, would a hypothetical Death Attack also count under the "always passes Save-or-Die" effect thing? Sorry if I'm being a bit technical/literal) until a certain point. I wouldn't be public with it, either. I'd give clues, maybe. "He easily shrugs it off," at the first try, and when he gets lower, say something like "He looks tired, both physically and mentally." Something to clue them in on it.

In short, I wouldn't make it public. It's sort of like saying to the PCs "Alright, I'm going to railroad you guys for a while," or "Now we're going to do this entire battle as a cutscene, in which you PCs have no say in any matter." (Honestly, the latter example, although exaggerated, has happened to me before... Curse that DM!)

There are other things you could do, though. As Inyssius Tor said, have it work partially if it fails. It might not be the intended result, but at least it's something. Alternatively, maybe just give the boss a bonus to saving throws against those effects.

BRC
2009-01-18, 11:58 PM
Honestly, I'd have to agree (to an extent), but I'd never make it a house rule. I always use a DM screen (or otherwise hide my rolls, books, etc.), and I have issues with mental math, so it usually takes me a bit to add up rolls (though I usually get the answer right before I hit the "equals" button on my calculator. In essence, as a DM, and for the sake of epicness, I'd cheat. If HP was pretty low, where combat wouldn't last more than another round or two at the current rate, then, yes, I'd stop messing with results.

... But, if I will lie the results for rolls on said Saving Throws, how much different is it than telling your PCs that the BBEG will always pass a Saving Throw for Save-or-Die and Save-or-Lose spells (speaking of which, would a hypothetical Death Attack also count under the "always passes Save-or-Die" effect thing? Sorry if I'm being a bit technical/literal) until a certain point. I wouldn't be public with it, either. I'd give clues, maybe. "He easily shrugs it off," at the first try, and when he gets lower, say something like "He looks tired, both physically and mentally." Something to clue them in on it.

In short, I wouldn't make it public. It's sort of like saying to the PCs "Alright, I'm going to railroad you guys for a while," or "Now we're going to do this entire battle as a cutscene, in which you PCs have no say in any matter." (Honestly, the latter example, although exaggerated, has happened to me before... Curse that DM!)

There are other things you could do, though. As Inyssius Tor said, have it work partially if it fails. It might not be the intended result, but at least it's something. Alternatively, maybe just give the boss a bonus to saving throws against those effects.
Now here is where me and you Disagree. The point of telling the players that this particular enemy will auto-succeed against Save-or-dies is so they don't waste turns futilely throwing those spells against the enemy. Imagine playing a wizard, and after wasting 4 spells and against an MBEG, only to learn later that the DM was using this rule so the MBEG would auto-succeed against those spells, I would be a little angry. And using this rule is very, very different from "Railroading" or running a battle as a cutscene. I'm still leaving the PC's options open, there are any number of things they could do to win the battle. The wizard could try to use some illusions/conjurations to control the battlefield, they could summon up some monsters for help, they could just sit back and start blasting, whatever. I'm not telling them how to do the fight, only banning one specific method because it isn't very much fun.

Railroading isn't saying "There is a wall there", Railroading is when you say "There is a wall everywhere BUT there"

Raum
2009-01-19, 12:18 AM
But my question is, what do you think about this idea? Obviously, it won't work for many groups, but does it add or detract from the game?It certainly detracts from the game. Essentially you're negating select PC abilities. The trade off is you get to tell your story. As long as the players buy into that, weighting story over game isn't a bad thing. Just be honest about it.

As for what I personally think about it, I prefer to have the game drive the story. But it's not my opinion which should matter to you - talk to your players. :smallwink:

Eldariel
2009-01-19, 12:21 AM
I feel just giving them action points is enough; they still can fail if they get really unlucky, but it's not likely to happen until they've expended their reserves. Like, what is the point of casting Finger of Death if you know it will fail? I think it should be castable; the stories of epic fights are nothing compared to how long you'll talk about that Red Dragon that rolled a 1 on the save vs. FoD (this happened to our party 6 years ago; it's still one of our biggest stories).

sonofzeal
2009-01-19, 12:25 AM
Excellent rule! Even better, tell your PCs that the same will apply to them! I find PCs tend to appreciate impartiality... and none like dying randomly. Losing the ability to kill important enemies randomly is a small price to pay.

Agrippa
2009-01-19, 12:25 AM
I like the intent, but I don't like the "automatic saves" aspect of it. How about instead, BBEGs and other boss-type monsters gain scaling bonuses on saving throws versus the kinds of things you're talking about. Something like:

{table=head]Hit Points Remaining | Bonus to Saves
75-100% | +8
50-74% | +4
25-49% | +2
24% or less | +0[/table]

That still gives PCs a CHANCE, at least, to try to silence the bad guy quickly with one risky spell. There's a certain risk factor involved ("Do I use my last phantasmal killer now, or try to beat him up a little more to make it more certain?"), but it still gives PCs a tiny chance to barge into a room and zap the bad guy as he's giving his big monologue if that's the kind of thing they're into.

If those bonuses don't seem high enough for your particularly party (they have beefed up save DCs, etc.), you can increase them to +20/+10/+5 or anywhere in between.

Do you mind if I add this to my list of house rules?

shadowfox
2009-01-19, 12:25 AM
I didn't mean to compare it to Railroading or the Cutscene-thing. My personal preference would be to, simply put, not know/tell. And the "Save or Die" thing did happen to one of my earliest campaigns before, before combat even started. A 10th level rogue/assassin (I can't remember the exact level distribution for the life of me) used a Death Attack/Coup de Grace on the BBEG, Zack of the Taverns (Monk 20/Drunken Master 10... I had been DMing for a year by the point this battle came up, so don't ask me what I set my PC's up against something epic level). Well, he survived the Death Attack, and then the worst thing possible happened... I rolled a 1 on his Fortitude Save. Now, the result equaled the Fortitude DC he needed to pass, but me and the PC got into a 10 minute long argument over whether the guy should live or not. Finally, angry and annoyed that a year's worth of planning had been ruined, I let the PCs have their way.

And then a epic battle of fighting their way out of a massive subterranean brewery (don't ask), which was set on fire in the second round of combat, which was actually really fun.

Personally, I'd rather see other solutions to the BBEG dying an anti-climactic death... Like an epic race to travel up 6 stories from the bottom of the brewery as it's being set on fire/burning down (I love alchemist's arrows).

But to each their own.

Honestly, as a PC, I'd rather not know that sort of rule, and if I were to implement such a rule as a DM, I wouldn't say a thing (I suffer from being the "friendly DM," so they usually don't have much of a challenge, and I tend to be too open at certain times). But that's just what I would do if I did it. Just my opinion. You do make a very good argument, though.

KKL
2009-01-19, 12:49 AM
However, I know the kids don't take to this kind of play anymore (too many of them vidja games with their saves and multiple lives, says I). A rule that seems interesting to me is to have a SoD spell take you to -(spell level) HP instead of automatic death. The spell still incapacitates you, but you have a chance of survival. It's a decent compromise. Doesn't help the BBEG much, but things like Death Ward and Contingency spells are useful there.

Do you purposely try to act extremely condescending to people who don't share your views?

RTGoodman
2009-01-19, 12:49 AM
Do you mind if I add this to my list of house rules?

Never! :smallwink:

Seriously though, have at it. I mean, I literally just made it up on the spot there so I have no idea if the numbers are good/balanced or anything, but feel free to use it.

Gralamin
2009-01-19, 01:20 AM
Personally, I'd rather see other solutions to the BBEG dying an anti-climactic death... Like an epic race to travel up 6 stories from the bottom of the brewery as it's being set on fire/burning down (I love alchemist's arrows).


Your missing a possible solution though. Why not have the PCs and the BBBEG fighting against each other while running up those 6 stories? Wouldn't that be more epic then running up those stories after the BBEG just was one-shotted?

I've always played by letting my players know they couldn't kill important NPCs with instant kill spells - But at the same time, they were immune to it. Against some monsters the instant kill abilities remained, those that are supposed to be dangerous (Illithids and Beholders for example).

zakk2to2
2009-01-19, 01:28 AM
i prefer a plot type dm interfence. yes killing the godlike dragon with a lucky FoD is sweet but leaves the other party members out in the cold. a boss should get an epic battle or else why in the world stat anything but the saves. the same goes for the heroes of course after all what fun i a 1 hit kill on you character so you have to sit out the rest of the game till they raise you? regular battles its alright but bosses deserve more then that and so do you.

shadowfox
2009-01-19, 01:40 AM
Your missing a possible solution though. Why not have the PCs and the BBBEG fighting against each other while running up those 6 stories? Wouldn't that be more epic then running up those stories after the BBEG just was one-shotted?

Well, quite honestly, he's been the single PC in all of my campaigns that constantly knows what he's doing. At the time, I didn't know that yet... Plus, When I literally needed to roll anything but a 1, I thought it wasn't going to happen. Plus, the resulting battle of survival was fun for everyone.

Honestly, though, it was a good thing. They probably would have died because he was accidentally overpowered to a point of being broken. We were playing version 3, and I didn't have rules of epic levels, so I may or may not have invested time into finding out the patterns/equations of BAB, base save bonuses, and Flurry of Blows (both number of attacks as well as attack bonus)... And possibly damage also...

Though fighting the BBEG while trying to escape to survive... That's a good idea. *Scribbles down in DM Notebook of Doom*

Jasdoif
2009-01-19, 01:51 AM
If your players know that boss-type enemies are immune to save-or-die/lose effects until they're at low HP, and they know when this rule comes into effect before they actually try to use such an effect; I don't see it as being game breaking. If nothing else, your players' preparation-casters, if any, will know ahead of time not to expect to end every single fight with save-or-die/lose spells; and can choose to prepare (more of) other spells that will work accordingly.


Now, if you're still interested in a compromise-type solution....Roll the saves against those effects normally, but the boss-type enemy actually passes on a preset number of failed rolls, and only if his/her/its health is not low. Once health is low, or once the "save buffer" is exhausted, it will suffer the normal results of failed saves.

So players have the option of throwing lots of save-or-X effects, which will/may eventually work, while at same time keeping the enemy's saves relevant.

For optimum effect, I recommend that the players not know when a save is made normally or when it counts against the limit, nor should they know what that limit is; and at the same time, the enemy itself should be completely unaware that it has this kind of protection, and its behavior should not be influenced by its presence or absence. This way, players will have no way of knowing beforehand if their spell will end the encounter.

Keld Denar
2009-01-19, 01:59 AM
I actually like the idea of giving the baddy a huge bonus to his saves against things like FoD when he's at full health, but help from the other PCs to "chip" away at his hp that allow the mage to drive the proverbial Dagger of FoD into the heart of the baddy. Then everyone contributes. Most SoDs do minimal damage when they miss, so if the mage tries to go off too early, his spell still works to lower the baddies health, but doesn't outright slay him. Definitely record the values ahead of time though, so you don't have to math it out while the fur is flying.

I would address this with the players prior to playing, but I would NOT tell them when the baddy is at 75%, or 50% or whatever. I think that uncertainty requires more attention to be paid to damage done and whatnot. I know that would be fun for me to sit there and scheme and ponder when the best time exactly to FoD him.

Then again, I don't really like SoD casters. My favorite damage spells are Teleport, Benign Transposition, and Dimensional Hop. Enabling others to get more damage on their turns is just as good as doing some on yours, plus makes your minions party members feel important. Putting people in their proper place is like playing a fine game of chess. Sometimes you need to sacrifice pawns to take out kings. :P

zakk2to2
2009-01-19, 02:04 AM
i personally think that players should actually have to work at defeating bosses instead of just trying to one hit them. i personally even though i generaly always play a caster never use those type of spells on a boss.

Altima
2009-01-19, 02:16 AM
Your big bad could always use a scroll of death ward or spell resistance on himself. Heck, you could even make up a relatively low level spell that grants immunity to death effects for, say, 1 round/level.

The thing is, once you start limiting one class's abilities, you'll find that the people playing that class may get slightly irritated. For example, if your save-or-die spells are nerfed against baddies, and then when the big, bad raging barbarian rolls a couple of criticals while wielding a greatsword...well, there you go.

There's lots of ways for you to deal with this. Smack the casters with feeblemind. Make the party fight The Dragon (not A dragon, THE dragon) before the big bad so most of their heavy artillery spells are drained. Heck, have the big bad throw out an anti-magic field when the party attacks.

After all, there's a fine line between balance and useless useful spell. After all, single target save-or-die and save-or-suck spells are just for that--taking out a single, dangerous threat. If all the bosses are immune to that, the magic user might as well just use group debuffs and perhaps evocation spells.

TomTheRat
2009-01-19, 02:20 AM
I've always handled this one by giving every PC in the game 1 "hero point" that they can blow at any time for a +20 on any roll (even after seeing the result). Damage rolls excluded.

I give myself as many points as there are players in the game.

If I deem it important for one of my critters to survive I pop a point, and vice versa for the PCs, and they get an extra point when its time for a new story (they accumulate) or if they do something truly spectacular. I refresh my pool for each new story.


Fair for everyone, and BBEGs and plot hooks never die to save/lose spells. Also, if a player decides "it would be totally awesome if I did this heroically impossible thing" they can.

zakk2to2
2009-01-19, 02:46 AM
that i can get behind

Tempest Fennac
2009-01-19, 03:08 AM
I like the rule idea as well, BRC. Admittedly, I tend to ban save-or-die spells altogether due to how cheap they can be. Hero points are interresting, but I tend to think that everyone else should have them as well, unless they only have NPC levels.

Quietus
2009-01-19, 05:32 AM
I've always handled this one by giving every PC in the game 1 "hero point" that they can blow at any time for a +20 on any roll (even after seeing the result). Damage rolls excluded.

I give myself as many points as there are players in the game.

If I deem it important for one of my critters to survive I pop a point, and vice versa for the PCs, and they get an extra point when its time for a new story (they accumulate) or if they do something truly spectacular. I refresh my pool for each new story.


Fair for everyone, and BBEGs and plot hooks never die to save/lose spells. Also, if a player decides "it would be totally awesome if I did this heroically impossible thing" they can.


The thing I DON'T like about the +20 is that it's a flat-out "I win" button. YOu can simply state that you aren't accepting the failure, and go with that. There's no drama to it. There's a certain tension is tumbling a die across the table, watching as it slows, and hoping it comes to rest on the number you need.


I was actually just about to suggest something similar to this - though I was thinking more along the lines of action points. I've never seen the actual rules for them, but just making crap up off the top of my head... You can use them for minor boosts - An additional d6 on any roll (damage included), or rerolling any die after seeing the result, something like that. Perhaps even allow them to force an enemy to reroll a die. They may or may not allow extra actions, though that's a fairly powerful use.

Each of the PCs gets three action points, and each time they level, they get put back up to three. Additionally, every PLOT IMPORTANT npc gets three of their own. Joe the Bum doesn't get any fancy stuff like that, but the BBEG most certainly would.

This means that if the BBEG happens to roll that nat 1, well... crap. Oh well, pop an action point, and reroll it. The barbarian with 50 strength and a mercurial warscythe just critted you? Oops... well, there goes another point, as he manages to get his staff up and in the way JUST in the nick of time - he still takes the brunt of the attack, but it's deflected just enough that it doesn't drive into his heart. Then he gets to go, and the party wizard can only stare in wide-eyed terror as the big bad's hands twist through the air, dark shapes forming around them - he recognizes the wail of the banshee spell, and a moment later, Mr. Evil Wizard lets loose with an ear-piercing scream. Good thing the PCs had their action points hanging around for this sort of occasion..

Moofaa
2009-01-19, 06:26 AM
If you aren't going to hide behind a screen and lie. (lets face it, most GMs do this from time to time, and theres nothing wrong with small uses of it) then a chart like the one posted in here would work. The idea of action points is great, and my more favorite choice.

When my freind GMs he goes by the dice. Playing in a campaign once I killed the BBEG by running him over with a moving van as soon as I spotted him. I rolled high manuevering through traffic and an outdoor cafe, and on damage. The target failed his reflex save to dodge.

I mostly go by the dice, but won't hesitate to lie to keep a ongoing antagonist alive if need be, however this works for the players as well. Additionally I am more lenient towards players until level 5 (they know that much, at least) although they will die if the dice go that way and they are doing something stupid (attacking the king...in his court...at level 3....)

I am considering an action point system however, it gives players more control and prevents anyone of being suspicous when some enemy refuses to go down quickly.

TomTheRat
2009-01-19, 06:37 AM
stuff

The idea is that sometimes, yeah, the story is more important than the dice. Drama doesn't come from rolls, drama comes from the characters and the story. I think what the OP was getting at was that he wanted a fair way to ensure that the rolls never get in the way of the drama.

Dhavaer
2009-01-19, 06:37 AM
Maybe you could have it that, if the monster fails against a Save-or-Die/Lose before they pass the hp threshold, they get a big penalty to subsequent saves against that spell.

Curmudgeon
2009-01-19, 07:18 AM
You're trying to screw around with the rules to enhance story-telling. Why not instead stay within the rules but accomplish the same thing?

The Clerical Pride domain (Spell Compendium) has the granted power to allow you to reroll a 1 on any saving throw, once per save. Complete Scoundrel has a bunch of Luck feats, including Unbelievable Luck, which gives you a +2 bonus to your worst save as long as you have at least one luck roll remaining for the day. An armor augment Crystal of Lifekeeping (Magic Item Compendium) grants various saving throw bonuses, plus rerolls.

The Luck feats have a limited number of luck rerolls. The armor augment crystal has a daily limit, too. Eventually the BBEG's luck will run out. And no DM cheating!

Jayabalard
2009-01-19, 07:42 AM
Why not instead stay within the rules but accomplish the same thing?why bother? There's nothing holy about the rules, and a house rule like this is more simple, more flexible, and actually does what he's looking for.

Oslecamo
2009-01-19, 08:09 AM
I prefer to make my BBEGs with uber equipment, buffs, protecting minions, feats, and perhaps a template or two slapped on. It will end up with insane saves and can only go down in a 1.

This way, the party is forced to dispell the buffs, kill the minions, debuff the boss, and then shooting save or die is a viable option.

Curmudgeon
2009-01-19, 08:18 AM
why bother? There's nothing holy about the rules The point of having rules is that it makes a compact of fairness between the DM and the players. If you can find a way to play fair and accomplish the same ends, everyone will be happier.

Let's say that this house rule goes into effect. Now the players know that if they use save-or-die spells immediately in a big battle, those spells will be wasted. The next time a PC gets a chance to acquire spells they'll tend to load up more on other types of spells, whether that makes sense for the character or not; metaknowledge is bound to warp PC choices. Even if the PCs are exceptionally well-prepared, representing many sessions of reconnoitering and planning, careful early battles to remove the BBEG's support structure, and shrewd acquisition of necessary magical boosts leading up to the final battle, they'll know that they still have to slog through a long fight even if they should have earned an easy victory. So the basic compact of fairness is kaput. It's less of a game, and more of a rehearsed set-piece.

That's why it's worth bothering to play fairly.

Epinephrine
2009-01-19, 09:15 AM
I think it is fine in one sense, in that epic boss fights are fun. It unfairly penalises casters though, since the combat types will always be dealing full daamge, while a good portion of the caster's repetoire may be useless until the BBEG is nearly dead, at which point it doesn't matter much what the caster had prepped. After all, I may well pack a pile of save or die spells for use against threatening non-boss encounters, and end up left with those facing the big boss. I think the idea of substituting damage for the effect if he fails his save might be fair - you use a 5th level save or die on him and he fails his save, at full health? Ok, maybe it'd be anticlimactic to have him die straight off - so have it deal a pile of damage in an appropriately memorable way.

Why? 1) because it makes the caster's spell selection invalid if you simply decide that they won't work right now - by giving it a potent effect (equal to a failed save damage spell of that level, or thereabouts) you're not trashing the caster's usefulness - after all, the BBEG failed a save - if the caster had an alternative spell readied it would have had the effect, and if the rule wasn't there he'd have taken out the bad guy. 2) They're taking a big risk even using a save or die - bosses tend to be pretty tough, there's generally a pretty low chance of success anyway.

Do you similarly limit your fighters? Barbarian charges in, raging, power attacks with his greathammer, rolls a 20, wow! Quadruple damage on the opening charge with an 8 point power attack - that's 4d12+132 damage, an average of more than 150 damage, killing the BBEG. Clearly, this would also need nerfing, no?

My DM also dislikes Save or Die type spells, and it's frustrating. I mostly don't bother packing them, as I know he dislikes them, and I don't particularly want to cast one and have it fizzle for plot reasons. As a druid my spells aren't that great for dealing damage - I don't get lightning bolts and fireballs, so I end up on battlefield control pretty much. Ironically, if I cast a spell like Mass Serpent's Quickness, which annihilates the enemy because the attackers in the party deal another 100 damage that's not a problem - like many DMs, I think he's got a bit of a "melee fighters should deal the damage" bias going on.

Shpadoinkle
2009-01-19, 09:21 AM
So... you basically want to make Save or Die spells completely worthless, and not tell the players about this?

The only reason I can think of for anyone to do that is to make it harder for the players, and there are much, MUCH better ways of going about that.

BRC
2009-01-19, 12:12 PM
Personally, I think some version of Rtg's chart would be best. Not sure about those numbers, but something like that. Maybe based off the amount of hit points remaining instead of percentages so it scales with level (as in, Boss monsters get a bonus on saves against SoD and SoL spells equal to their current Hp/X), that would actually be easier to keep track of than percentages, it would scale with level, ect ect.

Saph
2009-01-19, 12:57 PM
I usually just kick up the BBEG's save bonuses as high as possible, and/or make sure they have some defensive ability that prevents them from being one-shotted.

If I really want to make sure the battle is going to last, I make the BBEG flat-out immune to everything that could possibly one-shot it. Have a look at the Profound Darkness (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5220179) boss for my PS IV campaign if you want to see the sort of thing I mean.

- Saph

RavKal
2009-01-19, 01:15 PM
I'd say that it depends entirely on the group you're playing with. If they seem cool with the idea, then go with it. I'd actually advise using that table, that's pretty sweet. The only reason I'd see this rule as being bad is if the party wizard or w/e would feel completely ineffective in the fight. But, provided he's cool with it, then sure, go for it.

ericgrau
2009-01-19, 04:44 PM
There was a thread posted a while back asking what to do about a red dragon at a mid level. A couple people said "Just save-or-die it to death." Then I said "Wait, which SoD's?" Finally 1 or 2 people posted a long list. I checked the dragon's description and he was immune to 2/3 of them and even the remaining ones that targetted his weak save took an average of 6 rounds to finally work. Even direct damage was faster. Of course luck could have made that sooner or later.

So, to be clear, your goal is not to nerf but to eliminate the lameness of bad luck: a botched roll ending the fight early. This could be done by in game immunities and/or a cleric to restore things and/or saves or SR to help. Or just eliminate save-or-sucks altogether, or limit which creatures they can affect (e.g., not PCs and bosses). This won't imbalance things since spellcasters have plenty of other options. But if you nerf them make sure the PCs understand that SoS's are now a suboptimal choice most of the time.

Tusalu
2009-01-19, 05:10 PM
If you want it to be "fair", just make a template that lets them reroll X/day saves that would other wise bring the character down to -10 or death.
Otherwise, that's completely fine, and probably something all DM's should consider using.

Consider? Yes. However it depends hugely on the kind of game. And even if you keep the rule (which I can understand, dramatic tension should be the highest rule) I think it would work better if you just change it so that they roll 1d10+10 on potentially fatal saving throws. Pretty much same effect, but rewards players who prepares for big fights. I frustrating t can be very for a player to use one of his most powerful spells, and fail because the target is immune. If you want the villain to not be killed off, have hime/her/it prepare. Save-boosting items, player-neutralizing abilities (like stunning, sleep, dominating or tripping) or just make sure the players don't want to kill the villain off, and just knock him helpless instead. The last one works best for magnificent bastard types of BBEG's, but can be very interesting. One way of accomplishing it is having him holding vital information. That way they still have to defeat him, but they will have to question him afterwards.

Prometheus
2009-01-19, 05:24 PM
There is certainly precedent in a number of other computer RPGs spun in the D&D tradition. Of course, a number of these also tend to have longer boss fights when you confront them the regular way. There is also a tendency in these RPGs to ban things like stun, sleep, paralysis, and the like when it comes to bosses, which is quite the slippery slope.

If you ask me, it never hurts to give boss-monsters higher defense (HP, saves, AC, DR, SR, resistance) than normal, regardless of how you actually represent this in mechanics. As other posters have said - whatever the rules of the game are, be sure to let your players know.

UserClone
2009-01-19, 06:16 PM
Railroading isn't saying "There is a wall there", Railroading is when you say "There is a wall everywhere BUT there"

I'd like to sig this, if you don't mind.

BRC
2009-01-19, 06:21 PM
I'd like to sig this, if you don't mind.
Go right ahead!

How does This sound, Bosses get a bonus on saves against SoD and SoL spells equal to their remaining hit points/the average size of their HD. For example, a Wizard boss with 20 HP Would get a +5 bonus, though this may be abit too harsh, I dunno.

Raum
2009-01-19, 09:15 PM
How does This sound, Bosses get a bonus on saves against SoD and SoL spells equal to their remaining hit points/the average size of their HD. For example, a Wizard boss with 20 HP Would get a +5 bonus, though this may be abit too harsh, I dunno.Doesn't really matter how you work the numbers, the effect is the same. You negate, limit, or remove player abilities and, by extension, choice. You choose your story over the group's game. Talk to them, make sure they are ok with it.

I do have one question though, why not go all the way and simply ban the spells you dislike so much? Play with all mages as blasters. After all, that is essentially what you're advocating.

UserClone
2009-01-19, 09:28 PM
@Raum...because that is not at all their point?

BRC is advocating, with player consent every step of the way, that the BBEGs (only) don't get stomped in one round because of some cheesy-ass spell from a splatbook (or from an easily-and-oft-abused core spell), and instead become the memorable fights that they should be. Not only is he advocating player consent, but there is not way to "cheat," as the DM, you make rulings. Banning a spell eliminates it from the game entirely. BRC's suggestion merely removes it as an option for one-shotting an otherwise powerful BBEG due to luck, and, once again, with his player's permission. If you think that that is a stupid idea, feel free to disagree with it, but please don't flame/flamebait. If you aren't sure what that means, please see the rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=30&a=1).:smallsmile:

EDIT: Ninja'd!

BRC
2009-01-19, 09:28 PM
Doesn't really matter how you work the numbers, the effect is the same. You negate, limit, or remove player abilities and, by extension, choice. You choose your story over the group's game. Talk to them, make sure they are ok with it.

I do have one question though, why not go all the way and simply ban the spells you dislike so much? Play with all mages as blasters. After all, that is essentially what you're advocating.
Because I don't mind Save-or-Die/lose spells on principle. I mind them when they make what was supposed to be an epic encounter one dice roll. I don't mind my wizards clearing out mooks by giving em the Finger (of Death!). I don't mind my Bards using Hold Person on John Q Bandit, I don't mind my sorcerors turning Random Orc #23 into stone. I just don't like them doing it to Baron Von Thelastthreesessionshavebeenleadinguptothisfight. As for "Make all wizards Blasters", you seem to be confusing "Wall over there" with "Wall everywhere BUT there", the wizards can still do any number of things to help with and influence the fight, many of which could not, by any stretch, be considered "Blasting".

Okay, here is the list of things a Wizard could do in combat

Debuff
Blast
Battlefield Control
Buff
Summon Help
Save-or-Die/lose
Anything else I've forgotten. All this rule does is eliminate one of those options for a minority of encounters.

elliott20
2009-01-19, 09:36 PM
I generally do it TomTheRat's way as well, except the hero points/action points in my game are not nearly as potent but you get more of them. (one per session, and additional for by player vote) You can use one for a +2 unnamed bonus, or you can use 4 to just say you roll a natural 20. We also have this thing I nicked from Burning Wheel called "Beliefs". If you can tie your usage of a hero point to belief convincingly (and everyone can veto this if they think it's stretching it), you can instead use one point for a +3 instead, making it more potent.

On the flip side though, the GM also gets a number of points to use as well, but not nearly as many as the players put together. this means that while I can use these points to cheat death a number of times, if the players REALLY want this victory, they can pretty much over power me with it. It'll just cost them.

Raum
2009-01-19, 09:41 PM
Because I don't mind Save-or-Die/lose spells on principle. I mind them when they make what was supposed to be an epic encounter one dice roll. I don't mind my wizards clearing out mooks by giving em the Finger (of Death!). I don't mind my Bards using Hold Person on John Q Bandit, I don't mind my sorcerors turning Random Orc #23 into stone. I just don't like them doing it to Baron Von Thelastthreesessionshavebeenleadinguptothisfight. So you mind using them only when it matters? I fail to see much difference.


As for "Make all wizards Blasters", you seem to be confusing "Wall over there" with "Wall everywhere BUT there"I've tried to avoid getting into a railroad discussion. At least partially because railroads are only inherently bad (IMO) when they involve either force or deception. Ninety plus percent of published adventures are written as railroads. Many are also very successful. But do you really want to turn the discussion to railroading?

UserClone
2009-01-19, 09:51 PM
A question, elliot20: can a player in your campaign use three points at once for a +6? or five points for a natural 20+2? And that doesn't actually seem like that many points to me, as it would take four sessions to get the ability to natural 20, but you could conceivably be fighting a BBEG before then (although definitions of BBEG may vary). See I think what BRC is talking about is the main bad guy of a story or story arc, not the main bad guy of a session, or even necessarily of a short adventure.

BRC
2009-01-19, 09:53 PM
A question, elliot20: can a player in your campaign use three points at once for a +6? or five points for a natural 20+2? And that doesn't actually seem like that many points to me, as it would take four sessions to get the ability to natural 20, but you could conceivably be fighting a BBEG before then (although definitions of BBEG may vary). See I think what BRC is talking about is the main bad guy of a story or story arc, not the main bad guy of a session, or even necessarily of a short adventure.
I'm talking about any fight the DM decides is a "Boss" fight. Personally, I think this rule, like pretty much any house rule, should be run by the players before implementation.

elliott20
2009-01-19, 09:58 PM
the point Raum is making is that if you make a wizard's power effective sometimes, but not others, based on an arbitrary criteria, you essentially ensure that the wizard player will feel, well, not quite in control of things and possibly strangely restrained. It's not that there is anything wrong with you wanting to make a villain fight last longer, it's that the way you go about doing it feels like someone telling people playing chess they can use the queen as much as they want, but they can't use it to check the king. while it's really your game and you can run however you want, doing things this way just feels odd.

that's why I think just going the "action point" method is a bit better as at least now instead you're just letting the villain expend his resources that the players also have access to. When you choose to get the villain to use up his action points, you're making a judgment call from a tactical as well as story stand point rather than a somewhat clunky ruling.

Yahzi
2009-01-19, 10:45 PM
I've always handled this one by giving every PC in the game 1 "hero point" that they can blow at any time for a +20 on any roll (even after seeing the result). Damage rolls excluded.

I give myself as many points as there are players in the game.
I like that. Even better: let the players decide how many points they want, knowing that the "enemy" gets the same number. :smallbiggrin:

I might have to try that.

elliott20
2009-01-19, 10:47 PM
I like that. Even better: let the players decide how many points they want, knowing that the "enemy" gets the same number. :smallbiggrin:
ooooo, now THAT'S devious. I gotta try that.

Jayabalard
2009-01-19, 11:07 PM
The point of having rules is that it makes a compact of fairness between the DM and the players. If you can find a way to play fair and accomplish the same ends, everyone will be happier.I fail to see your point. A house rule is a rule; as long as it's known up front there's nothing unfair about it. There's nothing particularly special about the ones in the books.


So... you basically want to make Save or Die spells completely worthless, and not tell the players about this?Not according to the OP.


(in response to: I assume the players know about this) They do , and if they try to use a Save-or-Die/Lose spell on a "boss" monster that hasn't reached the HP threshold, I tell them that the enemy will make it's saving throw, so it's not like I'm tricking them into wasting spells/turns casting spells I know will fail.

Morandir Nailo
2009-01-20, 01:15 AM
Do you purposely try to act extremely condescending to people who don't share your views?

No, but I do add the occasional tongue-in-cheek comment (here I was riffing off the "oh noes D&D is turning into WoW!!111one" crowd); I guess I forgot I shouldn't do that on the interwebs. I'm perfectly aware that different people view character death in very different ways; it's just differences in playstyle, and that's cool.

Furthermore, the houserule I suggested - SoDs put you at -(spell level) HP - seems reasonable, IMO. It keeps the incapacitation aspect of the SoD, allows for some tension (can the Cleric get to his buddy in time?) without guaranteeing PC death, and, if the PCs aren't smart and don't coup-de-grace the BBEG, allows for some good recurring villain fun.

The last bit about the BBEG using Death Ward armor and Contingency spells was just some advice for the OP. There are plenty of ways already in the game to make sure that a SoD spell doesn't kill off your BBEG, or at least allow him to come back and haunt your PCs later; having someone that you thought you defeated handily return later, stronger than ever, is a perfectly valid dramatic option.

Mor

elliott20
2009-01-20, 02:13 AM
No, but I do add the occasional tongue-in-cheek comment (here I was riffing off the "oh noes D&D is turning into WoW!!111one" crowd); I guess I forgot I shouldn't do that on the interwebs. I'm perfectly aware that different people view character death in very different ways; it's just differences in playstyle, and that's cool.

Furthermore, the houserule I suggested - SoDs put you at -(spell level) HP - seems reasonable, IMO. It keeps the incapacitation aspect of the SoD, allows for some tension (can the Cleric get to his buddy in time?) without guaranteeing PC death, and, if the PCs aren't smart and don't coup-de-grace the BBEG, allows for some good recurring villain fun.

The last bit about the BBEG using Death Ward armor and Contingency spells was just some advice for the OP. There are plenty of ways already in the game to make sure that a SoD spell doesn't kill off your BBEG, or at least allow him to come back and haunt your PCs later; having someone that you thought you defeated handily return later, stronger than ever, is a perfectly valid dramatic option.

Mor
a lot of these though, requires that the GM has a fairly good understanding of all the options out there, which, if placed on the shoulders of a GM who is just starting out, (or indeed, even a veteran GM) it can be difficult at times.

Having a simple house rule that the GM can quickly fall back on make up for these situations is probably just easier, though not RAW.

In the spirit of the game, I personally think both options are valid ways of doing things.

Curmudgeon
2009-01-20, 02:15 AM
I fail to see your point. A house rule is a rule; as long as it's known up front there's nothing unfair about it. There's nothing particularly special about the ones in the books. In D&D 3.5 PCs and their enemies use the same rules to play the game. This house rule would be the "particularly special" exception, so it's inherently unfair.

You could just as easily state that the BBEG can't die until at least one of the PCs dies. That's a rule, so by your assessment if "it's known up front there's nothing unfair about it", right?

Saph
2009-01-20, 09:05 AM
In D&D 3.5 PCs and their enemies use the same rules to play the game. This house rule would be the "particularly special" exception, so it's inherently unfair.

What if you use the book rules to create basically the same result?

E.g. if I load the BBEG up with save bonuses so that he's going to save against the PC's insta-win spells around 80% of the time (HD plus Con/Wis plus resistance/morale/luck bonuses) and then give him three saving throw rerolls per day (via luck feats from Complete Scoundrel). Or if I pick a monster which due to template and type, is immune to all of the commonly encountered insta-kill effects.

It might not be a houserule, but from the players' point of view there's no effective difference.

- Saph

Raum
2009-01-20, 09:59 AM
What if you use the book rules to create basically the same result?

<snipped example>.

It might not be a houserule, but from the players' point of view there's no effective difference.If you're going by the rules there is a difference. The NPC essentially gives up offensive options in favor of defensive.
-----

@BRC - Have you considered using a system with 'mook' rules? Or creating a set of mook rules for 3.5? That appears to be the effect you're going towards.

BRC
2009-01-20, 10:52 AM
If you're going by the rules there is a difference. The NPC essentially gives up offensive options in favor of defensive.
-----

@BRC - Have you considered using a system with 'mook' rules? Or creating a set of mook rules for 3.5? That appears to be the effect you're going towards.
Define "Mook" rules. If you mean what I think you mean, then that's basically what I'm doing here isn't it. Making it so only Mooks are vulnerable to spells that end a fight in one round. I don't know if that counts as a "Set" of rules, but whatever.
As for staying within the rules to pump up the bosses saves: while that is an option, it means that I need to super-focus my bosses on having high saves just so my PC's don't turn them to stone or paralyze them on the first round. Because they are so focused on their saves, it makes it very difficult to make them tough offensively. I suppose it's possible to make a boss that has both high saves, and is still an offensive threat, but I'm lazy.

valadil
2009-01-20, 11:17 AM
It depends on the priorities of the game. It sounds like you're aiming for a game where story is more important than mechanics. That is a perfectly valid way to play and I do it all the time. As long as your players understand that that's what they're in for, it should be fine.

Saph
2009-01-20, 11:38 AM
If you're going by the rules there is a difference. The NPC essentially gives up offensive options in favor of defensive.

Not really. As a DM, you can duplicate pretty much every houserule with official rules. The main difference isn't power, but the amount of time it takes and the amount of knowledge it requires.

- Saph

Raum
2009-01-20, 05:03 PM
Define "Mook" rules. If you mean what I think you mean, then that's basically what I'm doing here isn't it. That does seem to be the effect you're going for, but there's a difference in orientation. Guess I'm just wondering why create a rule to situationally nerf PCs instead of creating a 'mook' class of NPCs. Fourth edition's one hitpoint rule might be easily portable (guessing, I don't know 4th ed well).

Frankly I don't have anything against taking out save or die spells altogether. It's the situational aspect which really makes me wary. What happens when the only high level spell a wizard has left is Disintegrate (or some other save or lose spell) and he goes up against a 'boss'? Do you let him memorize a replacement on the fly or simply tell him the spell will do no more than 5d6 damage? If save or die spells don't exist, you don't run into that issue. It's really your players who need to agree though, I'm just pointing out potential pitfalls.


Not really. As a DM, you can duplicate pretty much every houserule with official rules. The main difference isn't power, but the amount of time it takes and the amount of knowledge it requires. Not really. If NPC Bob takes class X or feat Y to boost saves he can't use that level or feat to take class A or feat B which might improve attacks or other abilities.

On a slight tangent, what common house rules are easily replaceable by published rules? Most house rules I've seen modify or negate a published rule in some form.

Saph
2009-01-20, 05:21 PM
Not really. If NPC Bob takes class X or feat Y to boost saves he can't use that level or feat to take class A or feat B which might improve attacks or other abilities.

All feats and levels are not equal. One combination of feats/levels will be more effective than another. It's quite possible to make a build which can do everything that another build can, and has a few handy immunities as well. The only limits are how good at optimising you are, and how much time you're willing to spend.


On a slight tangent, what common house rules are easily replaceable by published rules? Most house rules I've seen modify or negate a published rule in some form.

All house rules, yes. But from the point of view of making a BBEG immune to save-or-dies, you can:

a) Use levels, feats, and official rules to make him immune
b) Homebrew or template-build a monster which is immune to the save-or-die effects the PCs have access to
c) Just houserule that your BBEG is immune to SoDs.

. . . and produce exactly the same result, to the point where none of the players could tell the difference. So given that the result is indistinguishable, I don't think it matters very much which one you use.

- Saph