What if save-or-suck was a two-step process?

[johnbragg]

What if, before you hit a target with a save-or-lose spell, you had to first hit them with a spell to make them vulnerable? Some catchall spell to open the door to a major enchantment or illusion, major alteration (include plane shift), or major necromantic effect?

This would make save-or-lose much more difficult, as you'd need to beat two saving throws, and the target (or more likely allies) would have a round to do something to counter the first spell.

Would that be a good thing? A bad thing?

You'd need a more official definition for save-or-lose spells, too. Possibly duration based? Cue endless argument about whether spell X is save-or-lose or not.

[Keneth]

We use hero points in PF and all is right in the world. I don't think the vast majority of spells need to be crippled with a double save mechanic.

[ryu]

You need to make a distinction between save or lose and save or die effects. Also it doesn't make sense for spells that save or suck to require this treatment when they effect the environment.

[ericgrau]

So... nerfing one of the weakest schools. Sounds like a bad idea. Single target save-or-X is perhaps the worst spell type there is. It only causes issues when the BBEG gets a super unlucky roll and we get another forum story about an anticlimactic final fight. And many BBEGs already get 2 rolls, it's called SR. Throwing SR even on BBEGs that don't normally have it, perhaps via a custom template or item might be nice. A cleric assistant also works.

Mass save-or-X, and no-save-just-X are quite a bit better. So then you have to start going down spell lists, dividing those out from the rest and deciding what to do with them.

[johnbragg]

You need to make a distinction between save or lose and save or die effects. Also it doesn't make sense for spells that save or suck to require this treatment when they effect the environment.

If this is a good idea, the biggest problem is definitions and distinctions. I don't think this would apply to spells like Enervation, Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Idiocy, or Slow. All those spells impair your functioning, but they don't shut you down completely. Command compels you to one thing for one round. Evard's Black Tentacles, same thing--you can still do stuff, you're still in control of your own mind.

It would absolutely apply to spells like Charm Person, Sleep, Phantasmal Killer, Disintegrate, Baleful Polymorph, Flesh to Stone, Finger of Death.

I'm not sure if it should apply to shut-you-down-for-1 round/level spells like Hold Person and Tasha's Hideous Laughter. I'm not sure about Suggestion, which can be a save-or-lose spell, but doesn't radically change your body or mind.


I don't think the vast majority of spells need to be crippled with a double save mechanic.

Maybe. I definitely wouldn't combine this with a Hero Points type system.

[johnbragg]

It only causes issues when the BBEG gets a super unlucky roll and we get another forum story about an anticlimactic final fight.

Or a player gets an unlucky roll early, and gets taken out of the whole fight.

[ericgrau]

Ya that too. Unlucky rolls for both BBEGs and PCs. They're much more trouble in the hands of the weaker opponent than they are in the hands of the stronger opponent, because they sometimes cause unexpected flukes.

Instead of requiring someone to pass both rolls, you might take the average of the two rolls. This has its own problems though. Those fighting an opponent who is only weaker in a specific area will auto-trump him.

[Zanos]

It would absolutely apply to spells like Charm Person, Sleep, Phantasmal Killer, Disintegrate....

2d6 damage per caster level is not a save or lose. A level 20 caster averages 140 or so damage with it, and most CR 20 mobs have 300+ HP.

[Psyren]

Phantasmal Killer already has two saves, why would you nerf it even more?

Anyway, here are the definitions I use:

Save or Die: On a failed save, you are dead or otherwise removed from the fight entirely. Bringing you back during the fight is unlikely due to long cast times. (Examples: Death effects, Flesh to Stone, Decerebrate.) I put anything that has to be dealt with after the fight in this category.

Save or Lose: On a failed save, you are removed from the fight, but in a softer way than a SoD. With the help of your allies (e.g. a successful dispel effect) or if you have the right precautions prepped, you can come back fairly quickly, losing only a round or two. (Examples: Resilient Sphere, Hold Person, Sleep.)

Save or Suck: On a failed save, you are still in the fight, but hampered in some way, perhaps even severely. The right one of these can make it difficult, or in some cases nearly impossible for you to meaningfully contribute, but generally there's at least something you can do. (Examples: Glitterdust, Web, Confusion)

[prufock]

A possibly better solution is to use a "graded failure" mechanic similar to Mutants and Masterminds. If you fail by 1-4, you suffer some minor effect, if you fail by 5-9, a worse effect; if you fail by 10 or more you're pretty much done. But M&M is a rank-based system, not level-based. This may not translate well to D&D.

Alternatively, long-term save-or-sucks and save-or-loses could grant periodic additional saves - with higher level spells having longer periods - or heck even make them all Concentration in duration.

[ericgrau]

The thing with D&D with every part of the system, if you don't take someone down in 1 round, you take him down in 2-3 rounds. A better solution might be finding ways to speed up combat so it can finish sooner. And once you hit the stage where it's basically all cleanup have foes flee or surrender. Or if the players want to finish them off just say that they do.

[johnbragg]

Phantasmal Killer already has two saves, why would you nerf it even more?

Because I'm old, and I haven't actually seen the spell used in a game since 2nd edition. (And now I remember why--two saves means there are better uses for that 4th level spell slot.)

And yeah, Dispel Magic does everything that I was thinking the one-round warning-light effect would do. PC blows a will save and is Charmed? Dispel Magic, dummy. (And again, *I* am the dummy who forgot, not you dear readers.). Balefully Polymorphed? Dispel Magic.

Which leaves only the save-or-die spells.

[Nightraiderx]

You know what would make save or dies/loose/suck more balanced though?
Concentration duration, (like how a wizard begins chanting, you feel his
words begin to influence and warp you, (make a save) you pass save, he keeps trying). That way if you used a charm/dominate spell and it failed, you could
keep attempting as long as your concentration wasn't broken, also increasing effects based on your relative level to theirs. (similar to how scaling was for blashemy but based on relative character level not spell level (b/c spell level hacks made that line of spells broken outright).

[johnbragg]

Or a player gets an unlucky roll early, and gets taken out of the whole fight.

I guess the lesson here is that there are ways around most save-or-lose spells, and most of them are Dispel Magic. (Some of them are Protection from Evil.)

Should I start titling these threads "Probably Stupid Question:...."

[eggynack]

I can't see this being a particularly good idea. Save or loses aren't nearly as problematic as no save just loses. Wizards get a huge advantage from the degree to which they just don't have to interact with the opponent, and this incentivizes wizards to go down that road.