Should NPCs use Save or Die abilities against PCs?

[HunterOfJello]

As a DM with a group that can get very angry in some situations, I've avoided the use of Save or Die spells and SLAs against Player Characters. I have used spells like Harm which reduces the PC to 1 hit point (if they fail a save) and had them almost die from that spell. Save or Lose spells have occasionally popped up too.

In general, save or die spells have not been used by the players or by myself as the DM so far. The group is at level 12 with only 2 players and I thought I might as well ask everyone else about this. I haven't seen too many threads on this issue and there may be strong opinions on it, but I will ask nonetheless.

Not using abilities that a monster has in their ability array obviously weakens the monster significantly and should reduce their CR, which I try to take account for when planning fights. I'm also not sure if removing them takes away some of the danger that the fights in the game should possess. The 2 players have gotten from level 3 to 12 without dieing once yet, although they have come close.

So, should a DM use Save or Die abilities against the players in a d&d 3.5 game? How about very deadly Save or Lose spells?

[pffh]

I avoid save or die spells until the party has a reliable way to deal with the aftermath. Save or lose are a fair game though.

[Circle of Life]

In short: Yes.

At 12th level your players have the resources to protect themselves from most of these effects if they want, and to raise dead if something goes horribly wrong (without level loss if they play it right). It would be different if it was sub-10, but 12 and up? All you're doing is babying them at this point, and you should just remove the spells entirely if you are going to ignore them. I'm not suggesting that you mercilessly SoD them every round of combat, but when a creature has a 1/day "Welp, you're boned" ability, that's generally factored into its CR - if you don't use it, why use that creature?

If you consistently hold back on your encounters for fear of your players throwing a temper tantrum, you should probably get new players.

[Psyren]

I tend to agree that level 12 is high enough that players should be worrying about and planning for attacks like that.

In Pathfinder, save or dies aren't really "save or die" so you can justify their use quite a bit more.

[Zaranthan]

If the players aren't using them, I wouldn't use them either. While it's certainly part of the game, it's not necessarily a fun one for everybody.

[DoctorGlock]

Depends on my players. In the group where the wizard thinks fireball is great and TWF fighters are pwn, I will not break out SoD or even much SoL

When we have a warblade ubercharger, DMM cleric and tainted incantatrix, all using various "just die" abilities, then they understand the system well enough to take precautions against SoD and have likely been using those spells themselves.

[Psyren]

If the players aren't using them, I wouldn't use them either. While it's certainly part of the game, it's not necessarily a fun one for everybody.

The players might not be using them in hopes that the DM won't, though; and while the DM should be fair, s/he should also challenge the players and break them out of their comfort zone on occasion. And again, level 12 is plenty high enough for them to purchase the necessary protections, or deal with the consequences of a failed save.

A good way to ease them into the idea is with a softer SoD - something like a Gorgon.

[Quietus]

A good way to ease them into the idea is with a softer SoD - something like a Gorgon.

This is pretty much what I'd think. If you want to start incorporating SoD's into a campaign, start with something softer - Baleful Polymorph, Flesh to Stone, and the like. There's a decided "You are no longer fit to take part in this combat" feel to these, but it lets the players know the gloves are off. Alternatively, a plot where you're explicitly spelling out "Okay so we need to have this Bodak that needs killin', it can kill you by looking at you" can help ease players into the mindset of protecting themselves.

That being said, I would generally stick to Save or Lose like the Baleful Polymorph/Flesh to Stone mentioned above, outside of climactic fights. End boss? Hell yes it's going to fling around Finger of Death if it can. That dude that's trying to end the world just isn't going to roll over and take it. Random Orc Cleric #3? Not so likely that it'll throw around Slay Livings, even though it'd make sense, because that death won't feel properly epic.

[Novawurmson]

This is pretty much what I'd think. If you want to start incorporating SoD's into a campaign, start with something softer - Baleful Polymorph, Flesh to Stone, and the like. There's a decided "You are no longer fit to take part in this combat" feel to these, but it lets the players know the gloves are off. Alternatively, a plot where you're explicitly spelling out "Okay so we need to have this Bodak that needs killin', it can kill you by looking at you" can help ease players into the mindset of protecting themselves.

That being said, I would generally stick to Save or Lose like the Baleful Polymorph/Flesh to Stone mentioned above, outside of climactic fights. End boss? Hell yes it's going to fling around Finger of Death if it can. That dude that's trying to end the world just isn't going to roll over and take it. Random Orc Cleric #3? Not so likely that it'll throw around Slay Livings, even though it'd make sense, because that death won't feel properly epic.

^This. Give them time to adjust to thinking about the possibility, and use it only when it's plot appropriate.

[supermonkeyjoe]

I have an unspoken agreement with my Players, they don't use save-or-dies on my bosses and I don't use save-or-dies on their characters. It's worked out well for everyone so far.

[Crow]

My wife got pissed when a badguy with a vorpal sword chopped her head off in the first round of combat.

I thought it was funny as hell, though.

[Jack_Simth]

So, should a DM use Save or Die abilities against the players in a d&d 3.5 game? How about very deadly Save or Lose spells?
General rule of fun: Use about the same level of optimization as everyone else at the table. This is supposed to apply equally to everyone, player and DM alike. One of the biggest 'fun killers' is not high optimization, nor low optimization... it's a major discrepancy in power (which one person optimizing very well, or one person optimizing very poorly, will cause).

So if your party casters are making hefty use of Save-or-Suck, Save-or-Lose, and Save-or-Die spells, then the casters the DM uses need to do so as well. If the party casters are making little use of Save-or-Suck, Save-or-Lose, and Save-or-Die spells, then the casters the DM uses need to do so as well. If the party fighter is doing the Shock Trooper / Leap Attack one-hit kill route, then the opposing 'brute' monsters need to change their feats out to a similar level of optimization. If the party fighter is going two-weapon fighting, then 'brute' monsters may need to 'forget' to use some of their better feats and monstrous abilities.

Does this make sense?

[KillianHawkeye]

If you guys are perfectly happy not using them, then continue not using them.

If it's bothering you as a DM that your monsters aren't getting to use their abilities, then you'll have to reconcile your needs with the needs of your players. I suggest trying it out the next time a major villain shows up and see how your players actually react. Instant death or debilitation is a great way to get players to really hate your villains, which is a sure sign that you're doing something right as a DM.

[0nimaru]

I tend to throw SoDs out more freely, but it's under a lighter ruling on death.
SoDs Drop you to -8, and the Revivify spell has a 1 minute window. PCs are unable to learn or cast any of the other revival spells, as they now require ceremoniously hallowed ground.

I also tend to avoid SoL spells on the first round of combat, even though that is where they are most effective. I'm supposed to be making encounters that can challenge the party, and I can't conscience looking at 1 of my 4 players and saying "The bad guys need the action advantage, and I didn't want to account for you. How about you mess with your phone for the next 20 minutes?"

[undead hero]

My general rule is that if the players use an ability so can the dm :smallwink:

I had a player that loved to use Implosion but didn't like it when his level 20 wizard was offed by a Cleric.

Please note said wizard deserved his fate... He killed the religious leader of the city who was a level 5 aristocrat just for the heck of it. He didn't think that the level 5 may have high level clerics and paladins under his command ;) .

[Ernir]

This doesn't have much to do with optimization, IMO. SoDs are rarely the most powerful spells of their levels (Finger of Death or Simulacrum?), it's just that they tend to finish fights with less warning than other spells do.

Which you can fix by... giving warning. Like the caster cackling about his ability to kill you with a word.

Or better, make the first SoD you use Phantasmal Killer. It will most likely fail (due to one of the saves, the SR, or the descriptors), but at least it will give the players the idea that **** just got real.

[Callista]

Yes, if the NPC in question would do so. These abilities aren't available until PCs are high-level enough to reverse them; and by the time you are using save-or-dies, death has become an inconvenience and the real danger is losing your soul, being permanently trapped somewhere, etc. This does make death lose its threat; but if you are playing at high levels (more than 10, definitely more than 12), then you're already doing some pretty crazy stuff, only one of which is evading death.

[Jack_Simth]

This doesn't have much to do with optimization, IMO. SoDs are rarely the most powerful spells of their levels (Finger of Death or Simulacrum?), it's just that they tend to finish fights with less warning than other spells do.

I'm going to disagree with you there. You also won't be spamming Simulacrum without a hefty dose of additional cheese; it's a very expensive spell. Finger of Death, however, you might.

Additionally, there's a reason that most caster guides recommend save-or-X effects over direct damage - Finger of Death is much more optimal than Delayed Blast Fireball in most circumstances, for instance. And, of course, in order to make good use of Save or X effects, you really need to push your primary casting attribute, more than you need to for many other strategies (Buffing, Summoning, and Direct Damage, notably)

It is optimization to use save-or-lose/die effects over many others, but not all optimization is equal.

[Alienist]

Surely the optimal thing to do is to open up with area attacks.
Preferably ones which if they offer saves use different saves?

Hence the monk/paladin builds in the 'can't touch this' threads.
You slap him with a finger of death and he'll just shrug it off.
Whereas if you opened up with an area attack he's still going to shrug it off, but his buddies the mage, the archivist and the cloistered cleric are going to be smoking boots.

[deuxhero]

Depends on how stricty you define "die". Flesh to stone is perfectly fine for instance.

[DrDeth]

If the players aren't using them, I wouldn't use them either. While it's certainly part of the game, it's not necessarily a fun one for everybody.

That's fair. If the players agree no "save or die" or no Holy Word, then you can go along with that.

[ericgrau]

The assumption that it applies equally to monsters and PCs does not hold here. PCs routinely kill monsters, but the reverse isn't as common. SoDs are pretty lousy in the hands of a PC where the monster might save and there are more reliable attacks, but for a monster a lucky SoD is one of the best shots they have among their otherwise dismal chances of taking out a player. So the first thing to recognize is that SoDs are better in the hands of monsters than in the hands of PCs; I don't think it's unreasonable to allow SoDs to PCs while restricting them in monsters.

Second I'd agree that if you do use SoDs you should prepare for dead PCs. At least wait for resurrection magic to be available and don't be stingy on treasure to cover the diamonds. Also don't forget that PCs who are behind a level should get accelerated xp rewards. If you're using a lazy xp method then to match the normal system make sure the PC fully catches up within 3 levels if 1 level behind, or if 2 levels behind the first lost level should be regained twice as fast. If more than 2 levels behind you should strongly consider bumping them up to only -2 levels by fiat or rapid level up or allowing a brand new character who's a little behind because that's when PCs start becoming unplayable. Going without level loss is popular but it instantly leads to PC carelessness. IMO a temporary penalty is best, even if you pick something else besides level loss that's fine. Besides that the PCs should figure out the counters to death magic.

I think tactic-countertactic is part of the fun of the game so you shouldn't remove too many tactics, but I can see how SoDs could be the least interesting while requiring the most cleanup out of the tactics out there. Probably better to keep only in a group that is ready to handle it.

[panaikhan]

Some encounters in published modules go out of their way to kill PC's.
In the WLD, one encounter involves the bad-guy mage using Forcecage, THEN a maximized Cloudkill (I think - the one that costs you CON even on a save) on whoever gets trapped. This is after it tells the DM "don't give PC mages battlefield control spells, they're too powerful".

Buy yeah, if everyone at the table is fine with not using them, then don't. Or alter the spell / ability for everyone, so it doesn't kill outright. "out of the combat" is a lot easier to swallow than "out of the game".

[DigoDragon]

My group house ruled "Save or Die" spells into "Save or Dying" spells. Rather than an instant kill on a failed save, the spell puts you at -1 Hit Points (unstable). This has worked out well for us and still can be quite lethal. Just not instantly so.

[Acanous]

SoD spells are useful and generally a good idea for boss fights. I don't pull punches with my players. I give them ample treasure, free reign on what books they're pulling feats, spells and classes from. Death is part of the game, and if there's a TPK doe to Power Word: Kill, that just means I get to break out Ghostwalk :D

[Aotrs Commander]

Once the PCs can reliably recover from stuff (including death, petrification, ability damage etc etc), I will cheerfuly show no mercy (except on rare occasions where killing the PC would negate that ability to recover, e.g. killin' the cleric when they can't pop off to a city to pay for his res). Heck, I spammed Destruction like it was going out of fashion in the latter half of the up-to-Epic Dragon Mountain (I was mostly using it for the 10D6 damage on a failed save, since their saves were high enough that when I actually killed them once or twice, it was a bonus!)

I also use Pathfinder rules for after-death now that they exist, so if someone karks it by accident (and the cleric hasn't loaded Revivify, naughty cleric) it's a penalty, but not an tedious for both me and the player to deal with.

That said, in the past and at lower levels, I have tended to use Fate Points, as in "the thing that killed you didn't kill you and puts you stable and on -death +1 hit points." The Fate points were awarded as quest rewards and once they were gone, they were gone. I found that forcing their use was nearly as good as killing the PC, in terms of upping the stakes (better, even as it tended to force their comrades to do something about it before they got actually killed again, without actually having to deal with the death-related problems). Something like that is a very good compromise between keeping things sufficiently dangerous to keep the players feeling threatened, and not actually killing the PCs.

[Anxe]

At level 12 they can definitely deal with save or die effects. However, if your play style is working without having save or die effects, then why change a good thing?

In my campaign I throw save or die stuff at my players all the time. They die a lot and get rezzed a lot. It seems to work for us, but the constant trips to the afterlife may threaten your suspension of disbelief. If I was you, I'd bring it up with the players.

[Heliomance]

Personally, I hate SoDs from both sides of the screen. As a player, you either rendered the rest of the party irrelevant (if the SoD works) or you utterly wasted your action (if it doesn't). There is no middle ground.

As a DM, you quite possibly just killed a player on a single toss of the dice. That's not fun. I thoroughly dislike the "death is cheap" mentality that easy rez spells encourage, so coming back from the dead in my games is likely to be harder. But a PC shouldn't die just because they rolled a 1 at the wrong time. If a PC dies, it should be meaningful, or it should be because they screwed up. If they go and attack a clearly superior foe and die for it, it's their own stupid fault. Similarly with jumping off an enormous cliff, or any other instance of player stupidity. If they go up against a tough foe, and have a long, hard battle, and just run out of hit points before the bad guy does (having made the choice to not run, if it's available - which it usually is), then that's fine, and it's a meaningful death. If they sacrifice themselves heroically to give their friends time to escape/complete the ritual/evacuate the town/whatever, then that's their choice, that's a meaningful death, and that's fine.

If they eat a SoD in the first round of combat against a mook, and roll a 1, then there was nothing they could have done to prevent it, and they're getting punished for bad luck. In my mind, that isn't fun.