Would I be a bad DM is I disallowed "Save or Die" spells?

[Almarck]

The title asks me question. The ban would be for both PCs and the NPCs and disallow either of them from using anything that results in instant death as the result of a single failed save.

What qualifies as instant death is any spell that permanently or effectively neutralizes an encounter by reducing it to a single dice roll as its primary mechanic.

So, Baleful Polymorph is out as is Phantasmal Killer

The shadow conjuration bridge trick is allowed, because it's a clever use of magic and the shadow conjuration has other uses. As is using debuffs.

I'm running 3 people and I haven't had opportunities to get more.

There's probably other spells I should remove too.

[Deophaun]

Meh, not really. But the most powerful spellcasting options don't allow saves anyway, so consider the types of casters you are encouraging.

[Almarck]

So them, those get to the ban list too/ have limitations depending on what they are? Granted, I know my understanding of PF and it's mechanics is rather small...

Running Pathfinder, so not all of the spells made it in from 3.5, but I know a couple of the ones that are did.

[Renen]

What about "save or get killed by fighter"?
Those spells that dont "kill" but disable you so that someone with a big sword can casually walk up and do a Coup de Grace?

[Almarck]

Hm, I actually think that one would be okay. Mostly, because it means 2 people have to do it and there's only 3 people. I don't think their system mastery is so high as to abuse those, but disables are fine for the most part.

4 if I make a DMPC to follow them around and even then, rarely a combatant.

What spells in general should I look out for?

[sleepyphoenixx]

So them, those get to the ban list too/ have limitations depending on what they are? Granted, I know my understanding of PF and it's mechanics is rather small...

I scratch my head every time i read something like this. No offense intended, but don't you think it would be beneficial to understand the game first before you start banning/modifying things?

Because SoD spells actually aren't quite that big a gamebreaker, except in specific circumstances. It's pretty telling that most players don't use them much even if you don't ban them.
It's those save-or-lose spells Renen mentioned you have to watch out for, because contrary to SoD's they are usually area/multitarget spells. And they wouldn't be affected by your ban at all. (That's not a suggestion to ban them. BFC is a pretty big staple of playing a caster imo.)

[Almarck]

Acronym meaning?

What spells should I be wary about players taking? I want to know what spells I should or should not allow them to take.

[cildan]

BFC = Battle Field Control

[Arbane]

Acronym meaning?


SoD: Save Or Die
BFC: Battle Field Control.

[Honest Tiefling]

Perhaps take a look at this. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xjPIOH8F8a0l74BdDF7Q23nCfZ-YX68Xr6JmmtznMw4/edit)

As for your question, I think you are only a bad DM if you proposed and upheld a rule that your players vehemently disagreed with and did not wish to experiment with. Perhaps as a kooky idea if you have had issues with spellcasters, you play a certain campaign. See, magic has gone horribly wonky, with spells of different types failing randomly. Which spells fail change weekly or monthly. And people know that it is the very fabric of magic going awry, because these spells get ripped out of sorcerers and replaced with different ones. Sometimes they don't even remember being able to cast different spells. Magical monsters have become twisted versions of themselves, etc.

[sleepyphoenixx]

SoD - Save or Die
SoL - Save or lose (stuff like Grease, Glitterdust, Web)
BFC - Battlefield control (a lot of SoL spells fall into this category, such as Stinking Cloud or Solid Fog. Also wall spells and most fogs/mists/other stuff that blocks line of sight or movement)

In general you should allow your players pretty much any spell. There are a few outliers (like the infamous dragonkiller, Shivering Touch) but most of those spells are merely effective if used right, not gamebreaking.

Assuming 3.5 i'd ban Shivering Touch and its lesser version and the entirety of Serpent Kingdoms, but that's pretty much it.

[Chronos]

Save-or-helpless doesn't really require multiple people at all. Let's say we have a solo wizard. He meets some orcs, and uses a Sleep spell to put them to sleep. OK, they're no threat now for a few minutes. He then gets out his scythe (he's trying for that whole Grim Reaper look), walks up to each one, and chops its head off. The fight was over as soon as the Sleep spell was cast; everything after that was just cleanup work.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Save-or-helpless doesn't really require multiple people at all. Let's say we have a solo wizard. He meets some orcs, and uses a Sleep spell to put them to sleep. OK, they're no threat now for a few minutes. He then gets out his scythe (he's trying for that whole Grim Reaper look), walks up to each one, and chops its head off. The fight was over as soon as the Sleep spell was cast; everything after that was just cleanup work.

Except if there's 5 or more enemies. Or one of them saves. Because at that level most enemies will be able to kill a wizard in a single hit, too.

[Zubrowka74]

Phantasmal Killer is generally not considered a very good spell. It's an instakill only if you pass two saves and SR. It's mind-affecting, also blocked by fear immunities. At high level opponents won't be likely to be affected, as for minions it only affects one creature.

[Red Fel]

First off, on the initial question, you seem to distinguish between Save-or-Die spells and Save-or-Suck spells, and I don't know that such distinction need be made. In a combat situation, a spell that shuts a character down with a single failed save is probably lethal anyway, just not as immediately. Yes, you get a moment's reprieve inasmuch as you're not immediately dead, but you're basically dead on the next round unless someone's a quick hand with a de-debuff. (Rebuff? Is that a thing? That should be a thing.)

Second, some Save-or-Die spells are so underwhelming they're pointless. A classic example is Phantasmal Killer, which requires the target to fail not one, but two saves. If they succeed on either one, the spell fails. And after a certain point, the chances of that become infinitesimally small, barring serious debuffs used in advance.

Short version, though? I wouldn't call you a bad DM for disallowing Save-or-Die spells among NPCs, because they're the classic example of one bad roll ruining everyone's fun. But they're hardly game-breaking among PCs, particularly when so many monsters can have outrageously high saves when the more dangerous Save-or-Die spells come online.


What spells should I be wary about players taking? I want to know what spells I should or should not allow them to take.

It's the typical ban list. You should be worried about any spells that can rewrite reality, such as Wish or Miracle, as well as any spells which can conjure minions who can do the same thing, such as Gate. If you're a more linear-plot DM, you might also worry about spells that can bypass major plot elements, such as Greater Teleport. Be less worried about spells that kill things, and more worried about spells that render encounters inconsequential (such as battlefield control spells) or bypass them altogether.

[BWR]

Old school rant: Bah, kids these days. Why, back when I started save or die poisons and effects were part of the game from level one and on. D&D these days is too kind. I remember the days when getting to level 2 was an accomplishment, not an entitlement.

Joking aside, it depends on how lethal you want your game. PF has toned down the SoD even from 3.5. If that's the sort of game you like, fine. Nothing wrong with that. As others have pointed out, if you want to make things a bit more dependant than one simple roll, think a bit beyond mere death effects.
Take Phantasmal Killer. It actually requires two failed saves, not just one - three if the target has SR. Is this really much different from a critical hit that one-shots someone?

[Bloodgruve]

I've made changes to games before fully understanding the impact the changes would have. It's never worked out for the best for me. If you look at Save or Die spells and they look too powerful just remember that there is a low chance of them hitting if your PC's have done anything to bolster their saves and you haven't buffed up the NPCs. I'd personally steer away from banning anything in PF to start. The best thing you can do for your game is get the PC a little scared, that creates engagement in the game. My favorite sessions as both a player and a DM were when the party was seriously challenged, it's exciting. As long as you give the PC's the opportunity to avoid or prepare for 'Save or Die' situations they will enjoy it. Don't ban any 'Save or Suck' spells, PC's need to know how to work together and counter bad situations. If they don't it only makes higher level game play that much harder for the DM not to outright kill the PC's. If anything limit the optimization that a PC can do to increase his own caster level / DCs so the parties Save or Die spells still have a chance at missing. A couple of my favorite sessions involved character deaths when I knew I was walking into a challenging situation, but I made the decision to do so and simply lost ;)

IMHO

GL

[Almarck]

K, so I think that's what I need. Thank you.

[Vortenger]

I've often wondered, what is the difference between casting Finger of Death vs having the barbarian pounce for 300+ damage in a round (I mean, the barbarian isn't going to miss, right?)? Either way, the creature in question had no chance for survival and no agency to respond. The spell offers a save, the alternative just has to beat AC (which is the character's job, after all)

Why, then, do people take complaint with the spell when either way the poor monster is dead, dead, dead with one round's worth of actions?

[Almarck]

It's less a question of the PC's actually and more a question of the foes they will be fighting having access to the save or dies.

I'm was considering blanket banning the save of die spells for both sides and then coming up with a good reason as to why no one has them, as a measure of some "Fairness"

[sleepyphoenixx]

Very few monsters have SoD's before the players get access to reliable protections against them (in 3.5, i imagine it's similar in PF). All of them are rather obscure at best.
As far as i'm concerned it's part of the game. Fail to prepare properly, you die. YMMV.

Your players are in far more danger to die from a (un)lucky crit than meeting someone using a SoD effect unless you really go out of your way to include them.
In the case of enemy spellcasters, just switch out any SoD you deem too harsh with a more entertaining spell. No bans needed.

[Almarck]

Eh, fine.

I got the information I need then. Thanks

[jaydubs]

There's nothing particularly egregious about such a ban. Just follow the basic rules of thumb for houserules.

-Whenever you can, let your players know about it before the game starts.
-If you have to change the rules mid-campaign, let your players respec around them.

[RoboEmperor]

Short Answer: Yes. Now when I mean "bad", I don't mean that you're a #%&*@ and you should go die, I mean you're a noob DM, and have a lot to learn.

A good DM doesn't ban stuff. A good DM knows how to counter and balance everything, and bans are an absolute last resort. You only ban stuff that breaks the established level of optimization, i.e. thought bottles, incantatrix, etc.

SoDs are weak. Every experienced spellcaster says don't get SoDs because a spell has to take out several monsters at once, but SoDs, they take out at best 1 guy per casting. So "maybe 1 guy" v.s. "guaranteed several guys"...

If I may make a more extreme analogy to illustrate how I view the issue, it's like a DM banning blasting. Blasting is underpowered, and the only reason anyone would grab it is for flavor reasons, but if a DM thinks fireball is too strong and bans all blasting spells, well, people will judge him poorly. So a guy focusing solely on SoDs is gonna be underpowered, by a lot, and if you ban SoDs... well... you'll be the same as the guy who bans blasting. Think about it. You're browsing games and the DM says "NO SoD spells!". My first reaction is to stay away from this DM because he is unskilled, probably extremely close minded, and who knows what other creative thing he would ban because he can't handle it.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one, but I have played against DMs who intentionally fudge all SoD die rolls so the enemies make the save. He intentionally wanted a game where only hit point damage mattered, and every single one of his players walked because the game was so boring, stupid, and unimaginative.

Reading your posts, it seems you're just afraid of the real SoDs, like finger of death and baleful polymorph, but I gotta ask why? As a DM, you outnumber the players in every encounter, so losing a grunt to a baleful polymorph shouldn't do anything, and you can protect your boss creatures with various wondrous items, scrolls/buffs, etc. so rather than employing these tactics, banning those spells would make you a "bad" DM.

On the flip side, a PC character turned into a chicken who lost his will save and forgot who he is, can be cured with a simple dispel magic. Finger of death can be stopped by death ward, or any number of immunities. Stone to flesh can be cured. I'm not seeing any issue at all with a player being on the receiving end of SoDs, and players won't be fighting spellcasters equal or higher level than they are except on the rarest occasion unless the game is high-op.

Anyways, my advice is don't ban stuff, learn how to deal with it, because every single thing you ban will make other people judge you more negatively, and you won't improve as a DM. You'll just stay at the same noob level forever.

I once abused dust of choking and sneezing to cheese through every single one of my encounters, and my DM banned it, which is fine because I thought it was OP as well. My other DM however, employed third eye clarity, which stops a stun effect once, and he rendered my cheese strategy useless without banning. So in this case, which DM do you think will garner more respect?

That aside, if your players also dread SoDs because of their lack of skill, then by all means ban them.

[EyethatBinds]

I'd say it'd be a player vote where the DM gets two votes. If the vote holds up, feel free to ban it. But be prepared to significantly adjust certain creatures. Bodaks come to mind first.

[Red Fel]

A good DM doesn't ban stuff. A good DM knows how to counter and balance everything, and bans are an absolute last resort. You only ban stuff that breaks the established level of optimization, i.e. thought bottles, incantatrix, etc.

I disagree very strongly.

Every DM - every one, without exception - has limits. Some have fewer limits than others, and some are more adaptable, but all have limits. Wise DMs know not to exceed those limits.

Now, a new DM may ban material with which he is unfamiliar or uncomfortable. This does not make him a bad DM; a bad DM, in his position, might refuse to acknowledge his limits, refuse to ban anything, and make awkward on-the-fly rulings based in ignorance, pride, or worse. A good DM would ban things in which he lacks confidence, so as to avoid contradictory or un-fun rulings.

A more experienced DM might still ban material, but for more nuanced reasons. Perhaps he is accustomed to high-op players, and wants to challenge them by banning T1 classes. Perhaps he is doing a very narrowly-focused setting, and bans things from beyond that setting. Perhaps he wants the players to experiment with new material, and so has precluded them from certain classes, spells, or features. Or perhaps he is aware that certain players engage in shenanigans with certain materials, and has decided to cut off those shenanigans at the source. This does not make him a bad DM.

Good DMs can issue bans just as easily as bad ones, and still be good DMs.


Anyways, my advice is don't ban stuff, learn how to deal with it,

This part, however, I agree with. Although I feel that a good DM can ban material and still be a good DM, I prefer a rule of inclusion to one of exclusion; more specifically, my players can assume that content is acceptable for play unless I have explicitly said otherwise (although I still prefer a heads-up so that I can refresh before the game starts), and I don't issue bans mid-game barring very extreme situations. A skilled DM (which is part of, but not the same thing as, a good DM) should develop sufficient system familiarity that he doesn't need to ban things based on unfamiliarity, although as I've said above, he may have other reasons for issuing a ban.

[Nibbens]

There's probably other spells I should remove too.

Saw this and had to chime in. It's a rare circumstance when this spell slips through, but if you're not familiar with mechanics and your players are - this could slip by your attention.

Aboleth's Lung.

Level 2 spell, one failed will save and the person can no longer breath air for 1 hour/caster level. Meant to be used on allies for underwater shenanigans, but instant death to anyone in a tavern... unless you rule that a person could breathe his own ale instead of water - but still. lol.

[Troacctid]

I'd have a hard time criticizing a DM for banning save-or-die effects, because honestly, the gameplay they offer just isn't very compelling. They're highly swingy, they're anticlimactic, and there's not much strategy in them. It's kind of like how one-hit KO moves are banned in competitive Pokémon battling. They don't make for interesting fights.

[nedz]

SoDs are bad spells because they are boring: whether they work or not. You could just not have your NPCs use them rather than ban them. I'm considering this approach for Magic Missile and Fireball, simply because I've seen those two spells used far, far too often.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Saw this and had to chime in. It's a rare circumstance when this spell slips through, but if you're not familiar with mechanics and your players are - this could slip by your attention.

Aboleth's Lung.

Level 2 spell, one failed will save and the person can no longer breath air for 1 hour/caster level. Meant to be used on allies for underwater shenanigans, but instant death to anyone in a tavern... unless you rule that a person could breathe his own ale instead of water - but still. lol.

Seeing how the average commoner takes at least 20 rounds to suffocate it's hardly instant or unavoidable.

[Vhaidara]

SoDs are bad spells because they are boring: whether they work or not. You could just not have your NPCs use them rather than ban them. I'm considering this approach for Magic Missile and Fireball, simply because I've seen those two spells used far, far too often.

The problem is that it's just as swingy and anticlimactic

Big Boss Fight
*Wizard casts Finger of Death*
*Failed Fort Save*
*Fight over*

And if all of your bosses are immune to SoD spells, then the player will feel like they wasted a spell known (bigger for Sorc than Wiz).

In this case, it's like banning monk or VoP: You don't do it because it's OP, you do it to to protect your players from screwing themselves.

[Nibbens]

Seeing how the average commoner takes at least 20 rounds to suffocate it's hardly instant or unavoidable.

Let's make it 100 rounds. 100 rounds is 10 minutes of not breathing - cast on the battlefield the minimum duration of the spell is 3 hours (as you should be 3rd level casting the spell). And unless the average commoner is versed in spellcraft or knowledge arcana, he'll have no idea why he can't breath nor know how to survive his situation as this information is not instantly imparted to him.

No, it's not instant - but to the average mook, it is nearly unavoidable.

[Honest Tiefling]

Depending on your definition of average mook, I'd like to think that a lot of them could quickly succumb to a fatal case of fighterswingingagiantsworditis, so a single spell to wipe one out is...A waste of time in a lot of cases?

[Nibbens]

Depending on your definition of average mook, I'd like to think that a lot of them could quickly succumb to a fatal case of fighterswingingagiantsworditis, so a single spell to wipe one out is...A waste of time in a lot of cases?

Aaaand that I can't argue with. lol.

[lsfreak]

I've seen suggestions before for making genuine SoD spells kill over multiple rounds, rather than at once. I don't remember the exact details of what was suggested, but something like Flesh to Stone deals 6 Dex damage every turn for 4 turns (Fort no damage that round) and petrifies if you reach 0 Dex, while Phantasmal Killer might be changed to 2d4 Wis damage (Will half), then 2d4 Con damage (Fort half), and then if both both saves failed death on the third round. It makes them useful even if they fail, allows either side to react to the casting (by casting healing spells, fear immunity, etc), and keeps total successes from being completely anticlimactic. (Of course, the numbers I picked were mostly at random and would need to be carefully balanced so that they don't overshadow non-SoD spells just on account of their effects on the way to death).

[sleepyphoenixx]

I've seen suggestions before for making genuine SoD spells kill over multiple rounds, rather than at once. I don't remember the exact details of what was suggested, but something like Flesh to Stone deals 6 Dex damage every turn for 4 turns (Fort no damage that round) and petrifies if you reach 0 Dex, while Phantasmal Killer might be changed to 2d4 Wis damage (Will half), then 2d4 Con damage (Fort half), and then if both both saves failed death on the third round. It makes them useful even if they fail, allows either side to react to the casting (by casting healing spells, fear immunity, etc), and keeps total successes from being completely anticlimactic. (Of course, the numbers I picked were mostly at random and would need to be carefully balanced so that they don't overshadow non-SoD spells just on account of their effects on the way to death).

That would actually make them better. You could even remove the death effect completely, because the rider effects are actually useful and the reason people would cast them.
Because death after 3 rounds (if you fail multiple saves in succession) is pretty pathetic. Any competent melee kills in one round with a full attack.

As it stands, SoD's aren't really worth casting. Their effect is too unreliable for their spell level and even if you succeed you still only take out one enemy and leave the rest unharmed and unhindered.
Most popular SoL spells are both area effects and have an effect even on a save, which is why people use them. They're usually lower level and end combat just as effectively.

The one situation where you would want to use a SoD - one lone, strong enemy - usually has high enough saves or outright immunity if the DM is at all competent.
And a lot of SoL spells still work just fine.

[nedz]

The problem is that it's just as swingy and anticlimactic

Big Boss Fight
*Wizard casts Finger of Death*
*Failed Fort Save*
*Fight over*

And if all of your bosses are immune to SoD spells, then the player will feel like they wasted a spell known (bigger for Sorc than Wiz).

In this case, it's like banning monk or VoP: You don't do it because it's OP, you do it to to protect your players from screwing themselves.

Yes I agree:

Big Boss Fight
*Wizard casts Finger of Death*
*Made Fort Save*
*Nothing Happened*

either way it lacks drama, though something like this can be funny if it's an unexpected result — but it's old the second time already.

[Chronos]

Fifth edition has a number of delayed death spells. Flesh to Stone, for instance: As soon as it's cast, you have to save or be restrained (i.e., can't leave your square, but can still act and aren't helpless). But then, every round you roll another save. If you roll three successful saves (not necessarily in a row), you shake off the spell, and return to normal. If you roll three unsuccessful saves, the spell finishes converting your flesh, and you're stuck that way indefinitely until someone restores you. And I think the spellcaster needs to maintain concentration during that time, too, so your buddies might also be able to free you just by killing the spellcaster before you're all the way gone.

And shame on everyone else, for not linking to the ultimate duel between clerics (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html).

[Scorponok]

If you're going to take out Phantasmal Killer, which gets two saves, then I'd also suggest taking out Ice Storm as well. 3d6 ice damage, 2d6 bludgeoning damage, and NO SAVE. Averages about 18 damage, enough to kill most schmoes sitting in a bar within its area of effect - which is about a 20 ft radius, if I'm not mistaken. A couple of these even against high levels can ruin their day.

I've DMed and put phantasmal killer against my PCs. I've thrown at least 10 to 15 at them in my 5+ year running campaign and none of them have died from it yet. Most PCs have at least one good save. Of course if you throw several mid level casters at them when they are low level then you are looking for the kill, but PCs equipped properly should be able to save on one of the rolls.

[Almarck]

I think the issue has more or less been resolved by now. But, I thank you for your further criticism

[goto124]

Seeing how the average commoner takes at least 20 rounds to suffocate it's hardly instant or unavoidable.

Do it in a desert.

[nedz]

If you're going to take out Phantasmal Killer, which gets two saves, then I'd also suggest taking out Ice Storm as well. 3d6 ice damage, 2d6 bludgeoning damage, and NO SAVE. Averages about 18 damage, enough to kill most schmoes sitting in a bar within its area of effect - which is about a 20 ft radius, if I'm not mistaken. A couple of these even against high levels can ruin their day.

I've DMed and put phantasmal killer against my PCs. I've thrown at least 10 to 15 at them in my 5+ year running campaign and none of them have died from it yet. Most PCs have at least one good save. Of course if you throw several mid level casters at them when they are low level then you are looking for the kill, but PCs equipped properly should be able to save on one of the rolls.

As a player I gave up using PK back in the days of 1E. I had a gnome illusionist who used the spell a lot as soon as it became available. I got tired of wasting a spell slot for no effect. Weird (Illusion (Phantasm) [Fear, Mind-Affecting] Sor/Wiz 9) is worth mentioning since it's just mass PK.

Ice Storm is a good spell, but there are a few counters. Also, it doesn't do too much damage — it's main purpose is to waste a round of the enemies time, which gives your side a free round of buffing. It's more of a time control spell — which is a kind of BFC.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder neutered most of these (ex: Slay Living (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/slay-living)) so I would just use those versions.

[jjcrpntr]

You're not a bad dm for banning save or die spells. As a DM it's your right to ban whatever you want. I have things at my table that I ban/don't allow.

I don't outright ban save or die, but I do ask my players not to use them. I think things like that are just fun killers (no pun intended). If the barbarian pounces and does 300dmg in a round as someone else said earlier, odds are by that level you have decent enough gear to make it at least have to beat your ac, or you have defensive abilities, or tactical ways to minimize the pouncy. Even then as a player I always said if I get beaten to death that oddly doesn't bother me as much, but roll fort, nope you're dead, just isn't fun in any way.

My ruling is I don't like it, so I wont use it and I ask my players not to use it. However IF they start using it then it becomes fair game and I will start. My players found that to be a fair compromise and thus far they haven't come up.

[RoboEmperor]

@Red Fel
I said my definition of a "bad" DM in my post was an unskilled DM so we don't disagree, especially since I agree with everything you said. :)