[3.5/PF] Idea to help cope with the save-or-X problem

[Rixx]

A lot of people have complained about the "save or die/suck" problem, saying that they have no positive outcome - either the fight ends instantly, ruining the fight for the DM and the other players, or the spell does nothing and is a complete waste of action and spell for the person who uses it. And since they are such an effective tactic and a huge part of the game and the game balance, they can't be removed from the game entirely either.

So here's an idea I think might be able to help with some tweaking and balance!

The basic idea is this: a system in which characters have higher than normal saving throws, in which passing against an effect that requires a save incurs a cumulative penalty to saving throws.

This way, save-or-sucks aren't as likely to work the first time, but every time they are used, the target becomes more susceptible to those effects in the future, even if they pass their saves. The fight can go on longer, and if the enemy passes their save, the caster's action wasn't a complete waste.

I think it makes more sense from an in-game perspective - to be hit by a dart from the same poison a few times only to have it have the same chance of taking effect each time doesn't make much sense, after all. Now a person's resistance can be weathered down as the fight goes on.

Of course, this "save damage" system does have a few problems to look out for:

- Since there's no way to prevent "save damage", a spellcaster can just use low-level or at-will abilities that target saving throws to weather them down, and then bring out the high level effects. Tying the "save damage" to spell level, save DC or something similar might help with this, or giving characters cumulative resistance to "save damage" as they level up, so the archmage's will can't be sucked away by cantrips.

- Finding the right balance of improved saving throws to the amount of save damage incurred will be a tricky balancing act.

- It's more to keep track of, which is the last thing 3.5 needs.


Has anyone ever tried similar houserules? Any thoughts?

[Runestar]

- Since there's no way to prevent "save damage", a spellcaster can just use low-level or at-will abilities that target saving throws to weather them down, and then bring out the high level effects. Tying the "save damage" to spell level, save DC or something similar might help with this, or giving characters cumulative resistance to "save damage" as they level up, so the archmage's will can't be sucked away by cantrips.

One problem I can see is the action economy. I am certainly not going to spend precious actions raining spells on a foe just to lower his saves, when I could be doing something far more productive (summoning monsters to control the battlefield, buffing etc). During this time, he is still attacking the party as efficiently as before. And if in the meantime, the fighter manages to take him down, that means I have just done squat.

Easiest way to manage SoDs is to simply throw multiple foes at the party, IMO, to reduce the significance of potentially killing one of them instantly. Though this still doesn't quite tackle of issue of BBEGs, unless you make them more resistant/immune to their effects via buffs/gear (tome of battle, death ward etc).

[Jack_Simth]

That... requires a lot of bookkeeping.

Simpler fix:
Give everyone a new option: Magical Soaking:
If you are above 50% HP, and someone casts a spell that affects you directly and is not primarily a damaging spell, you have the option of countering the spell as an Immediate action by taking 1d6 damage per spell level. The decision of whether or not to Soak the spell must be made prior to rolling the saving throw. If that damage would render you unconscious, dead, or Destroyed, you take the damage and the spell proceeds anyway.

So Fireball remains exactly as useful as it is now (it is primarily direct-damage, and is thus not affected), Glitterdust is negated by someone in the area soaking 2d6 damage, Stinking Cloud: 3d6, and Grease: 1d6. It's an Immediate action, so multiple casters hitting you means you still have to make the saves (only one immediate action is available), but the Wizard-10 hitting that crowd of Commoner-1's with a Cloudkill is going to have a bunch of dead commoner-1's on his conscience. That BBEG you wanted to take down with Dominate Person now has to be worn down a bit by direct damage before you can take him prisoner.


Easiest way to manage SoDs is to simply throw multiple foes at the party, IMO, to reduce the significance of potentially killing one of them instantly. Though this still doesn't quite tackle of issue of BBEGs, unless you make them more resistant/immune to their effects via buffs/gear (tome of battle, death ward etc).
Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud, Web, Wail of the Banshee, et cetera. The simplest response to multiple opponents is area effect save-or-X spells.

[Doug Lampert]

A lot of people have complained about the "save or die/suck" problem, saying that they have no positive outcome - either the fight ends instantly, ruining the fight for the DM and the other players, or the spell does nothing and is a complete waste of action and spell for the person who uses it. And since they are such an effective tactic and a huge part of the game and the game balance, they can't be removed from the game entirely either.

So here's an idea I think might be able to help with some tweaking and balance!

The basic idea is this: a system in which characters have higher than normal saving throws, in which passing against an effect that requires a save incurs a cumulative penalty to saving throws.

We have a measure for Ablative defenses in 3.x. It's called HP.

Your HP are your inherent toughness, your ability to roll with the punch and avoid harm, your ability to take a licking and keep on ticking, your inherent defensive mojo, your luck, your divine favor,....

Just which of those SHOULDN'T help vs. Save or X spells? Divine favor doesn't help against spells but does against swords? What sense is there in that!?

Just convert save or suck to HP damage with a special effect for if they reduce you to 0 or if you choose to accept the spell. Save for half on the damage. Yeah, it's boring, but the system is designed with HP supposed to be the primary defense, and then as actually played they're almost irrelevant. This is a design flaw, reverse it.

Don't invent a new cumulative save penalty or increased saves, just allow a character to take 60 or so damage to "soak" the non-HP effects of a level 6 even if she fails her save or if no save is normally allowed.

[Rixx]

I am certainly not going to spend precious actions raining spells on a foe just to lower his saves, when I could be doing something far more productive (summoning monsters to control the battlefield, buffing etc). During this time, he is still attacking the party as efficiently as before. And if in the meantime, the fighter manages to take him down, that means I have just done squat.

This is pretty much exactly the problem I'm trying to solve. As attractive to me as it is to have the spellcaster play second fiddle to the more reliable fighter, what I'm hoping we can accomplish is a way that the spellcaster's save-targeting spells can contribute to a fight without either ending it instantly or being completely useless.

Basically, the system I proposed (which has its own share of problems) seeks to solve these problems:
- Saving throw spells either completely work, or completely fail.
- If they work, the combat (more or less) ends, thereby invalidating the work of the rest of the party.
- If they do not work, the spellcaster instead becomes invalidated.

Of course, I'm the first to admit that the one I came up with is not a good system, which is why I posted here asking for more opinions and advice.

A system in which these spells don't completely succeed but also don't completely fail would seem ideal to me, and minimal change to the game's fundamental rules would be best, if it is possible. Pathfinder changing most save vs. death spells to save vs. massive amounts of HP damage was a good step in the right direction, but that doesn't do much for spells like Hold Person, which is practically a save or die at low levels.


...the system is designed with HP supposed to be the primary defense, and then as actually played they're almost irrelevant.

Yes, another problem! Thanks for wording this better than I could.

[Rixx]

...Okay, then perhaps this is a better system?

A new rule: Whenever a character makes a saving throw, he can give up hit points to get a bonus to his save.

This would make hit points a lot more useful, and even if a spellcaster casts a spell which fails, he still helped if the target spent HP to defend against it.

I can see this as being something that doesn't come into play until higher levels, but I think that's acceptable. A problem with this is that it essentially makes Constitution apply to ALL saves, not just Fortitude...

[Runestar]

Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud, Web, Wail of the Banshee, et cetera. The simplest response to multiple opponents is area effect save-or-X spells.

Wail of the banshee isn't that hard to counter (it has both sonic and death descriptors).

Glitterdust simply weakens the foe, so your fighters still have their work cut out for them. I actually endorse this spell, as it makes the rest of the party more useful, rather than irrelevant. And it is difficult to actually catch more than 1 foe in its radius. The real issue is the extremely cheap sculpt spell, IMO. You may want to consider limiting that instead.

Ditto for disabling spells such as cloud of bewilderment and stinking cloud.

[Person_Man]

If this is really such a big problem for you, you might want to try 4E. 1/2/3/PF edition D&D all have Save or you're screwed as a prominent game feature, and there's really no way around it other then to choose not to use those effects.

[Godskook]

That... requires a lot of bookkeeping.

Simpler fix:
Give everyone a new option: Magical Soaking:
If you are above 50% HP, and someone casts a spell that affects you directly and is not primarily a damaging spell, you have the option of countering the spell as an Immediate action by taking 1d6 damage per spell level. The decision of whether or not to Soak the spell must be made prior to rolling the saving throw. If that damage would render you unconscious, dead, or Destroyed, you take the damage and the spell proceeds anyway.

So Fireball remains exactly as useful as it is now (it is primarily direct-damage, and is thus not affected), Glitterdust is negated by someone in the area soaking 2d6 damage, Stinking Cloud: 3d6, and Grease: 1d6. It's an Immediate action, so multiple casters hitting you means you still have to make the saves (only one immediate action is available), but the Wizard-10 hitting that crowd of Commoner-1's with a Cloudkill is going to have a bunch of dead commoner-1's on his conscience. That BBEG you wanted to take down with Dominate Person now has to be worn down a bit by direct damage before you can take him prisoner.

Glitterdust and Grease are Conjuration(Creation) effects, both RAW and RAI(IMHO). Making them negatable by some force of will would destroy versimilitude, cause then the question is asked: "What happens when I throw real grease?" And the answer comes down as "Not the same as when you cast grease" ...............Yeah.

[Jack_Simth]

Glitterdust and Grease are Conjuration(Creation) effects, both RAW and RAI(IMHO). Making them negatable by some force of will would destroy versimilitude, cause then the question is asked: "What happens when I throw real grease?" And the answer comes down as "Not the same as when you cast grease" ...............Yeah.
They also have durations. They are magical effects, which mysteriously vanish after an arbitrary time period. Think of it as a less user-friendly version of Disjunction. The guy is ripping the spell itself apart by expending his life-force in the doing. This is done at casting (they have to cast a spell that affects you), and you've only got the one instant in which to do so... and you have to be expecting something to counter it (you can't take Immediate actions when flat-footed).

[Indon]

Put in a dramatic system that limits the use of save-or-Xes independently from spell memorization.

Say you have five Drama Points - you can then SoX five mooks, or take out two moderately strong enemies, or one miniboss-type - but not the Big Bad, he requires 10. Casting a Save or X spell on a target without the necessary DP just has the spell do HP damage.

Just establish an accumulation mechanism for DP - 2 per encounter doesn't seem bad to me, but every campaign's different so that might require tweaking.

Anyway, in summary.

Accumulating DP: Initial value of 5, +2 per encounter.

Spending DP: Hitting a target with a Save-or-X attack expends DP. Primary gauge here is narrative importance, CR guidelines are just suggestions.
"Mook"-category enemy (CR -3 or lower) - 1
Standard enemy (CR -2 to 0) - 2
Powerful enemy (CR +1 or +2) - 4
Low-power "Boss" enemy - 5
Big Boss - 10 or higher.

One-time, per-spell modifiers:
Death Effect: +1, +2 if True Rez needed.
Non-debilitating ability damage: -1
Multiple saves per target: -1

Other lessened effects should have varying reduced DP costs as appropriate.

You could also let the noncasters do neat things by spending DP as well.