Why the hate for Save Ends?

[CrusaderJoe]

So I notice something on a few message boards, "save ends" spells tend to be looked down upon.

In 4e these were some of the best abilities you could pick up because the potential for an longer duration was present. Saving throws in 4e were, for the most part, just a d20 so they were a lot easier to pass than 5e's scaling saving throws.

One of my favorite spells of all time has been the Hold Person line. Hold person is concentration and save ends. I understand the gripes about concentration (I like the idea though) I don't understand what is so bad about a spell that is "save or paralyze for 1 round, possibly more".

What I think, and I could be wrong, is that people look at spells that are Concentration or 1 minute, save ends and see the 1 minute and expect the spell to last the full duration and anything less than that is a sham. People need to look at the spell at its base form and realize anything past the first failed save is gravey.

Has anyone else ran into this Save Ends hate? Or is it just me?

(I've been on pain meds for the past month so it could be just me... Pain meds make me drowsy and weird.)

[Finieous]

I haven't seen the hate, but I like the mechanic. Like other checks, saving throws are highly determined by the result of the dice roll, and "save ends" (vs. "save or suck") helps to balance that variability in play.

[ProphetSword]

I can't speak to the other spells, but Hold Person seems weaker by allowing the target to save every round.

In older editions of D&D, it lasted a set amount of time if the target failed the saving throw. I don't have all my books handy, but just flipping through the old red cover Basic D&D book, I see that Hold Person lasts for 9 turns. In those days, a round was 10 seconds long and there were 60 of them in a turn (turns were 10 minutes). So, Hold Person in that edition lasted for 90 minutes.

When you compare that the target will be held for 90 minutes versus possibly 6 seconds or more (if lucky), you can see why people might not like it as much.

Oddly enough, those same people don't seem to be nearly as upset when the spell gets cast on them, and they get to save every round to end the effect...

[Coidzor]

Has anyone else ran into this Save Ends hate? Or is it just me?

Reliability. If the spell worked in the first place in earlier editions it worked and you had some amount of time you could rely upon it working for. With save ends effects, the effect is unreliable and you can't plan around it.

Generally speaking, I would much rather stack a few lesser effects that I can rely upon than to have one effect that may or may not last for one round to begin with and then may or may not last for another round to actually take advantage of the effect.

Compare paralyzing someone for 1 round with 2 rounds with 5 rounds.

If someone is paralyzed for 1 round, then all you're doing is denying them one turn and *maybe* if an ally is set up by them already your ally can capitalize upon their vulnerability and maybe take out that enemy, in which case, if a save or die spell were an option you might as well have cast that. But you're probably just trading the lion's share of your turn for their turn, and there may very well have been something more valuable you could have done with your turn.

If someone is paralyzed for 2 rounds, then the priority becomes killing them before they get back into the game, so it becomes a rush to take advantage of their paralysis before it becomes worthless.

If someone is paralyzed for a longer period of time, like 5 rounds, then the priority shifts to killing their allies while they're not able to contribute and then ganging up on them while they're alone and vulnerable or offing them as an afterthought after mopping up the rest of the fight.

[Easy_Lee]

As a player, I prefer finding spells that allow for as few saves as possible. Spells like heat metal and power word: kill are some of my favorites.

As a DM, I prefer that no single spell end an entire encounter. Spells like hold-person are much more potent than spells like entangle, because there's very little you can do while held. As such, I don't mind that most of these sorts of spells allow for multiple saves.

[Laurefindel]

I like save ends spells.

As a DM, it allows me to throw spells at the players that I have been holding back in the past because "sorry Mike, looks like you are not going to participate in this combat" is not something I consider fun. So many spells became somewhat of a gentleman's understanding that "you don't use it on me, I won't use it on you".

Now as a DM, I know the spell isn't going to paralyse a player for the whole combat and as a player, I don't have to go turn on the xBox because my character was hit by a Hold Person. Some people may not like it but for me, this is a win-win situation.

[Dimers]

As a player, I prefer finding spells that allow for as few saves as possible. Spells like heat metal and power word: kill are some of my favorites.

As a DM, I prefer that no single spell end an entire encounter. Spells like hold-person are much more potent than spells like entangle, because there's very little you can do while held. As such, I don't mind that most of these sorts of spells allow for multiple saves.

Ditto that. I'm pretty gamist, but there were a few parts of 4e too gamist even for my taste initially, and Save Ends was one of those. There are so many places where Save Ends was used and made no sense narratively or mythologically, like petrifying powers. If you're turned to stone, it should take equally strong magic to turn you back -- you shouldn't just 'get better' ten seconds later when the party leader throws a small buff at you! But in the end, I had to admit it makes for a better game, because a single save-ends ability doesn't shut down an entire encounter.

I prefer as a player to pick stuff that just works, guaranteed, and Save Ends doesn't do that. It could be negated quickly. The fact that Save Ends is often tied to the strongest spells means that I'm picking more modest ones, and that makes the game run more smoothly, and I appreciate it logically but still grumble emotionally.

[Kurald Galain]

Ditto that. I'm pretty gamist, but there were a few parts of 4e too gamist even for my taste initially, and Save Ends was one of those. There are so many places where Save Ends was used and made no sense narratively or mythologically, like petrifying powers. If you're turned to stone, it should take equally strong magic to turn you back -- you shouldn't just 'get better' ten seconds later when the party leader throws a small buff at you!

Yeah, this. People don't so much take issue with the mechanic of randomized duration, but with the way 4E used it. The game contains such situations as "you break your arm (save ends)", "the rust monster destroys your equipment (save ends)", and "transfer a save-ends effect to another creature regardless of what it actually is". Plus, it makes more sense to have the duration depend on (e.g.) "wisdom save each turn" instead of "random 50% chance for everyone, each turn".

And guess what, a spell that utterly disables an enemy until he makes his save is still going to be useful, it's just not as swingy as one that disables an enemy for the rest of combat.

[CrusaderJoe]

I think I just realized the answer to my own question.

4e had spells and effects that did *something* on a failed attack. Not all of them, but a lot of the ones I been looking through has them. It could be damage or it could be a partial of the main effect.

Spells no longer do that. They went back to the 3e hit or miss.

So if Hold Person in 5e was built in such a way as a 4e spell... It would be.


Passed Save: Target has speed reduced by 15' until end of next turn.

Failed Save: Target is paralyzed (save ends).

Damaging spells still have the effect on a pass but other spells don't generally have it.

So either way something happens and something might continue to happen.

*shrug*

[hachface]

If you're turned to stone, it should take equally strong magic to turn you back -- you shouldn't just 'get better' ten seconds later when the party leader throws a small buff at you!

Actually most if not all petrification effects in 4e were permanent until cured. Usually, though, you needed to fail more than one save for the effect to take place. The typical 4e petrification effect would first slow a target, then immobilize him after the first failed save, and then finally petrify on the last failed save.

It was somewhat elegant on paper but in practice it just meant that petrification never happened.

[Talderas]

It's a combination of DC + failing save to hit + save ends at the end of each turn + concentration rules. The combination creates a very poor cost/benefit ratio.

[Easy_Lee]

I think I just realized the answer to my own question.

4e had spells and effects that did *something* on a failed attack. Not all of them, but a lot of the ones I been looking through has them. It could be damage or it could be a partial of the main effect.

Spells no longer do that. They went back to the 3e hit or miss.

Yeah, for the most part this is how it is now. Some notable spells, such as heat metal, have guaranteed effects in addition to better ones on a failed save. And some don't allow for saves, such as Hex. But most are save for half (most Dex saves) or save and nothing happens (most effects that can completely shut someone down).

A large part of 3.5e offensive casting was picking spells that allowed for as few saves as possible. I suspect 5e will evolve the same way, with spells like the aforementioned heat metal seeing more player-use than spells like entangle.

[Kurald Galain]

A large part of 3.5e offensive casting was picking spells that allowed for as few saves as possible. I suspect 5e will evolve the same way, with spells like the aforementioned heat metal seeing more player-use than spells like entangle.

Yes. That's called "players can do math" :smallbiggrin:

Most players figure out sooner or later that anything that requires multiple rolls for success has its chance of working go down very rapidly. That's why I strongly dislike it when DMs give rulings like "you can throw the enemy overboard, if you make an attack roll and a skill check and then the enemy gets a saving throw" (and then call this generous DM'ing) because in practice that means "if you try this you'll fail, so do something else already".

[Chronos]

What's new about this? The 3rd edition version of Hold Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holdPerson.htm) also gave a new save every round to end the effect. If it was a good spell in 3 (and it was), then it's still a good spell.

Except that now, it's possible for a caster to get save DCs so high that many enemies will have a 0% chance of making their saves. When you absolutely cannot succeed on a saving throw, it doesn't matter how many of them you get. Heck, roll once on every initiative count, and do it with advantage, and you still won't succeed.

[Mandragola]

In 3.5 you didn't make saving throws against casters. I had a gnome illusionist who specialised in taking out giants with phantasmal killer... and colour spray for that matter. Stun was so harsh!

There's a trick you can do with save ends stuff. Ready an action to cast hold person or whatever when the first person after the monsters act. RP it as "tell me when you're ready to attack and I'll hold them" or something. So the monsters have their turn, your buddy shouts "now" and you cast your spell.

The reason this is good is that it gives every character a chance to batter the monster while it's held. Otherwise you can quite easily get situations where you cast it late in the initiative order so the monster gets to save when you first cast and save again when its turn comes around. With this method everyone gets a turn hitting it - yourself included actually as your turn will come around again before the monsters.

They can still make their initial save obviously. There's nothing you can do about that.

[Chronos]

In 3.5, even poor saves got some scaling with HD, and some monsters had enough HD for that to matter. Plus, to get the really high DCs, you'd have to heighten it, while a 5e caster gets their full DC with every spell, so a high-level caster can get guaranteed kills using 2nd-level slots. Plus also, in 3.5, no matter how high you got your save DC, there was always a chance to save by rolling a 20, but that's gone in 5.

[pwykersotz]

Yes. That's called "players can do math" :smallbiggrin:

Most players figure out sooner or later that anything that requires multiple rolls for success has its chance of working go down very rapidly. That's why I strongly dislike it when DMs give rulings like "you can throw the enemy overboard, if you make an attack roll and a skill check and then the enemy gets a saving throw" (and then call this generous DM'ing) because in practice that means "if you try this you'll fail, so do something else already".

Yeah, I figured that one out in my early GM days.Now my practice is 1-roll, contested with a static defense number for impromptu actions. I cringe at examples like yours now.

But yeah, if the spell is competitive with others of the same level after a single failed save and the rest is gravy, I'd use it. Also, its worth noting that 5e allows much more use from calling an enemy's weak save. You still have diminishing returns, but your odds of at least two rounds of enemy failure will skyrocket.

[Sidmen]

In 3.5, even poor saves got some scaling with HD, and some monsters had enough HD for that to matter. Plus, to get the really high DCs, you'd have to heighten it, while a 5e caster gets their full DC with every spell, so a high-level caster can get guaranteed kills using 2nd-level slots. Plus also, in 3.5, no matter how high you got your save DC, there was always a chance to save by rolling a 20, but that's gone in 5.
How many spellcasters have you seen with a save DC greater than 20? There might be one or two really high-level ones in the Monster Manual, but even then it'd have to be your worst save that you never bothered to beef up.

[Easy_Lee]

How many spellcasters have you seen with a save DC greater than 20? There might be one or two really high-level ones in the Monster Manual, but even then it'd have to be your worst save that you never bothered to beef up.

Spellcasting DC doesn't have to go over 20 to be guaranteed to affect certain monsters. A wide variety of creatures, such as beasts and oozes, have negative modifiers on certain stats. That means that, if you can figure out what those weak saves are and target them as a wizard, you're almost guaranteed to succeed.

It won't work on a dragon, which is a step up from 3.5e. Back then, you could kill a dragon with a low-level DEX drain spell, with the dragon's touch AC being the only save it got. So I think 5e casting is in a good place in terms of save DCs.

Now, scaling for non-proficient player saves, on the other hand...

[Chronos]

A high-level spellcaster will hit 19 save DC with no optimization whatsoever. It doesn't take very much at all from there to get to over 20. A Rod of the Pact Keeper or a Robe of the Archmagi will get you there all by itself, and an Ioun Stone of Mastery or the appropriate tome will each get you another +1. Now, granted, you can't count on getting all of these items, or even any of them, but some spellcasters will.

[silveralen]

Now, scaling for non-proficient player saves, on the other hand...

Depends on the class though. Paladin and monk have scaling all around, rogue, fighter, druid and barbarian have some scaling on secondaries.

It isn't a ton for most, but it's usually somewhat significant.

[Person_Man]

As a player and DM, I don't have a problem with a spell that basically wins combat if a creature fails a Saving Throw. (For example, player casts Stone to Flesh on a creature, which fails a Save, the spell has a permanent duration, and the players win the encounter). To me, its no different then a spell that deals massive damage to kill a creature. Part of the fun of tactical combat is figuring out the rock/paper/scissors/Spock/lizard of what attack should be used against a particular creature. If you don't like that aspect of the game, then everything needs to target the same defense and be resolved in a similar fashion.

For me, the problem is if Save or Lose spells or whatever become the dominant strategy (ie, clearly superior in all or most circumstances) for winning combat. Save or Lose spells shouldn't be superior to damage dealing. They should be one useful option among many. Therefore, some enemies need to have high Saving Throws modifiers, and/or special abilities that allow them to resist certain types of effects or end them early (like 3.5 Slipper Mind - if you are targeted by X and fail, you can re-roll each round until you succeed).

Another related issue is that low-level Save or Lose spells can be used to defeat high level enemies, whereas low-level damage dealing spells are basically useless and duplicative of high level damage dealing spells.

So in my ideal 6E D&D, Save or Lose spells have a set duration, attacks/spells/etc target a variety of different defenses (AC, Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, and Cha more evenly), creatures have a great variety of different defenses, and all attacks/class abilities/spells scale by default based on character level, and duplication/overlap between them is removed.

[Fwiffo86]

My 2 cents:

I get the feeling that people hate on save end spells because they just aren't the powerhouse they used to be. People became complacent with one spell to end them all mentality. So, now the casters bread and butter isn't so reliable. That makes many people upset.

The reasons could be anything from:
Now my favorite class is not as reliable to now my favorite class is weak.
Basically, power gamer problems. Ideally (and this is simply a concept), TTRPG players wouldn't actually care how "effective" something is, because they are there to have fun. But that is not the reality. The reality is, everyone wants to dominate at least part of the time. And making that a game reality is quite difficult.

[Person_Man]

It's also worth mentioning that while they nerfed most Save or Lose various ways, they did not nerf all such spells, and they did not nerf minions (Animate/Find/Conjure). So its basically just shifted the metagame selection to a different spells while creating a sub-optimal selection of spells that far fewer players will use.

[rhouck]

Otherwise you can quite easily get situations where you cast it late in the initiative order so the monster gets to save when you first cast and save again when its turn comes around.

This is probably the main thing that rubs me the wrong way about these spells -- the fact that, depending on initiative order, they may get TWO saves before you (as the caster) get to take another action. It would be less of an issue if most DMs rolled initiative each round, but for convenience/speed, a fixed initiative order is usually used for the entirety of combat.

I feel like there must be a way to tweak the spells just slightly to avoid the possibility of two saves prior to the caster getting to take their next action (after casting the spell). Perhaps have monster under effects makes saves at the END of the CASTER'S turn instead of their own turn?

[DireSickFish]

It's also worth mentioning that while they nerfed most Save or Lose various ways, they did not nerf all such spells, and they did not nerf minions (Animate/Find/Conjure). So its basically just shifted the metagame selection to a different spells while creating a sub-optimal selection of spells that far fewer players will use.

They also buffed damage spells this edition. Although as you pointed out, low level damaging spells at high levels do not scale as well as low level save or suck spells.

Save ends gets hate for unreliability and the fact that plain damage spells are much better this edition. A lot of save or suck also use up a concentration slot. Why cast a mezzing spell that they can save out of initially, and then save out of on later rounds when you can just cast a buff that uses your concentration and is guaranteed to help?

There are also good save or suck spells that do not have save ends, so the effect of the save ends has to be superior to pick that as an option.

[CrusaderJoe]

So it seems like spells should be made into Save and Suck a little (or Suck more).

Hold Person
Target: 1 Humanoid
Range:
Duration: Concentration

Pass: Target is immobilized until the start of your next turn.
Fail: Target is paralyzed, the target has a save on each turn to negate the effects. On a pass save the target is immobilized until the end of their turn.


Also take out the time limit on concentration spells. Just place a rule saying that if you take a short or long rest your concentration is auto broken. If a creature can't make the save then they don't deserve the free pass... Hell d20 alone should allow the target to pass out of sheer luck eventually.

I think the time limit is just another kick in the pants, it really isn't needed.

[Laurefindel]

I don't know...

a 3rd slot level fireball deals 8d6 damage. Most of the times it deals 25-30 points of damage, but sometimes it deals 10 or less, and sometimes it deals 45 or more.

For me that is not much different than save ends spell usually lasting about 2 rounds, but sometimes it lasts only 1 or less, and sometimes it lasts 5 or more.

I like the fact that fights are not a rocket tag anymore (well, less so anyway). I never liked the "whoever loses its first save automatically loses the fight" tendency of 3rd edition, so this is a welcomed change for me.

[Laurefindel]

So it seems like spells should be made into Save and Suck a little (or Suck more)(...)

Pass: Target is immobilized until the start of your next turn.
Fail: Target is paralyzed, the target has a save on each turn to negate the effects. On a pass save the target is immobilized until the end of their turn.(...)

Yes, I agree with this; a spell should have an impact unless the target has significant resistance.

I'm not sure about a shortlived auto effect, but some perks (can't use reaction until your round? no bonus action on your following round?) would have been nice.

[DireSickFish]

I don't think a spell needs to have an impact even when it misses. After all a Fighter doesn't do anything in a round where he misses the AC, at least not for that attack. The real problem comes when you either make the save and nothing happens, or you fail the save and lose the fight. Which is a problem save or ends helps nullify. You can have a spell with a powerful effect because you don't know how long it will last.

Players just don't like the unreliability, but that doesn't make it a bad thing. So we get more people taking fireball, or twinning Haste or whatever. Plenty of options this edition and I don't think Hold Person is a trap option even if it has its negatives.

[Vogonjeltz]

Most players figure out sooner or later that anything that requires multiple rolls for success has its chance of working go down very rapidly. That's why I strongly dislike it when DMs give rulings like "you can throw the enemy overboard, if you make an attack roll and a skill check and then the enemy gets a saving throw" (and then call this generous DM'ing) because in practice that means "if you try this you'll fail, so do something else already".

Thank goodness that's been done away with in 5th. Now it would just be a contest of Strength (Athletics) to do that simple action.


(For example, player casts Stone to Flesh on a creature, which fails a Save, the spell has a permanent duration, and the players win the encounter).

Except the 5e version requires 4 failed saves AND the Caster to be uninterrupted while concentrating for 10 turns in a row (and it costs a 6th level slot). So the afflicted creature still has 4 rounds to deal with the pesky caster, and that's if it's completely alone.

Flesh to Stone also would allow a very clever creature to grapple the Caster, and act to trap it, so if the caster concentrates all the way through, the caster is stuck until the effect is ended.


This is probably the main thing that rubs me the wrong way about these spells -- the fact that, depending on initiative order, they may get TWO saves before you (as the caster) get to take another action. It would be less of an issue if most DMs rolled initiative each round, but for convenience/speed, a fixed initiative order is usually used for the entirety of combat.

I feel like there must be a way to tweak the spells just slightly to avoid the possibility of two saves prior to the caster getting to take their next action (after casting the spell). Perhaps have monster under effects makes saves at the END of the CASTER'S turn instead of their own turn?

Even if they make the 2nd save, they'd still lose their turn (the save for Hold Person, for example, states it occurs at the end of their turn).

[JNAProductions]

I don't think a spell needs to have an impact even when it misses. After all a Fighter doesn't do anything in a round where he misses the AC, at least not for that attack. The real problem comes when you either make the save and nothing happens, or you fail the save and lose the fight. Which is a problem save or ends helps nullify. You can have a spell with a powerful effect because you don't know how long it will last.

Players just don't like the unreliability, but that doesn't make it a bad thing. So we get more people taking fireball, or twinning Haste or whatever. Plenty of options this edition and I don't think Hold Person is a trap option even if it has its negatives.

Except a fighter costs a turn when he misses. A wizard loses a very valuable spell slot and his turn, but has the exact same amount to show for it. It's kinda fine if a level 1 or 2 spell lacks that, but 3 or higher should always do something, even if it's only a minor effect.

[Fwiffo86]

Except a fighter costs a turn when he misses. A wizard loses a very valuable spell slot and his turn, but has the exact same amount to show for it. It's kinda fine if a level 1 or 2 spell lacks that, but 3 or higher should always do something, even if it's only a minor effect.

False.

The the greater the risk, the greater the reward.

Spells do so many things other than inflict damage. Losing a slot and a turn is a small price to pay for the possibilities spells allow.

[rhouck]

Even if they make the 2nd save, they'd still lose their turn (the save for Hold Person, for example, states it occurs at the end of their turn).

Yes, that's true, but that's still pretty lame (imho) when the enemy comes immediately after you in the initiative order and they have failed their first save. That means you spent your turn (and a spell slot), and got them to fail a save, only to make them miss one turn. It's not worthless (and certainly situationally useful), but kind of lame when one of the big perks of the spell is the paralyzed condition allowing your melee buddies to roll attacks with advantage and any hit is a critical.

I just don't like how the spell's effectiveness seems so dependent on initiative order (leading to the previously mentioned suggestion by another poster of readying actions so as to try and work around that). If the save was hinged to the caster's turn, the effect would be more uniform as failing a save would cause the enemy to be paralyzed for at least one round (in the sense that every other enemy and PC would get one turn before another save was allowed).

[JNAProductions]

Greater waste for the same "reward". D&D is a game, and I want my level 9 spell slot to do something even if my opponent saves. No, life doesn't work that way, but if I wanted a life, why would I play D&D?

Personally, I think it could be a terrain on miss. So if Hold Person fails, it leaves behind magical bindings in the area that are temporarily extra-dificult terrain, or something like that. Charm Person could, if not charming then, leave them a bit befuddled and impose a -2 penalty or disadvantage on ability checks, and nothing if they're immune.

Little things are all I'd like.

[Xetheral]

Even in 3.5, before saves were given every round, almost all of my players avoided Save or Lose spells like the plague, despite knowing they were more "optimal". No one wanted their entire turn in combat to be:

Player: "I cast <SoL spell>".
DM: (rolls a die) "Makes its save".
Player: "Well, I spent my swift action as an immediate action, and I could move, but nowhere is more advantageous for me than here, so I'm done."

Whereas the other players were doing:

Player: "I move to <x>, provoking an attack of opportunity from <y>."
DM: (rolls a die) "Miss."
Player: "I activate Elusive Target, and make a trip attempt against <y>." (rolls a couple dice)
DM: (rolls a die) "That hits, and the target is down."
Player: "I use Improved Trip on <y> to make an attack." (rolls a die)
DM: "Miss."
Player: (shrugs) "Ok, I continue moving to <x>, and take my attack on <z>." (rolls a die)
DM: "Hit."
Player: (rolls some dice) "Ok, that's <d> damage. I declare <z> my dodge target, and that's the end of my turn."

Sure, depending on the SoL spell, the caster might have taken a far, far more optimal approach than the poor Dodge/Mobility feat chain fighter. But the latter had a lot more fun doing it.

[Chronos]

And I'm sure that a 17th-level fighter would also like some way of being guaranteed to accomplish anything. Nothing a fighter ever does is guaranteed. Casters have plenty of ways to guarantee doing something. If everything casters did had that guarantee, it'd just make them even more broken than they already are.

[Xetheral]

And I'm sure that a 17th-level fighter would also like some way of being guaranteed to accomplish anything. Nothing a fighter ever does is guaranteed. Casters have plenty of ways to guarantee doing something. If everything casters did had that guarantee, it'd just make them even more broken than they already are.

The point is that casting a SoL (even in the old, better versions that didn't allow saves every round) is a one-event, several-second thing that doesn't even involve a die roll. The fighter might miss with all his attacks, but at least the player got to do a lot more on his turn. My players preferred damaging spells and attack roll spells specifically because it made taking their turns more exciting.

[JNAProductions]

Besides, when you have 3 attacks a turn, a bonus action for whatever you want, Action Surge for an extra three attacks, and any reactions, a Fighter that misses all of them is a Fighter that has seriously failed his duty. Even if you need a 15 to hit, it's pretty damn likely to hit on one attack.

Casters get one spell a turn, barring the few bonus action spells.

[Easy_Lee]

Besides, when you have 3 attacks a turn, a bonus action for whatever you want, Action Surge for an extra three attacks, and any reactions, a Fighter that misses all of them is a Fighter that has seriously failed his duty. Even if you need a 15 to hit, it's pretty damn likely to hit on one attack.

Casters get one spell a turn, barring the few bonus action spells.

Was going to say the same thing. Casters can* do some great stuff, but usually only once a round, limited to X times/day, and with a significant chance of outright failing.

Compare that to a level 1 fighter with 16 DEX making one attack and one bonus attack vs. a 16 AC target. His chance of missing both attacks, with his +5 bonus, is roughly 30%. With bounded accuracy, that 30% is going to drop significantly over time. A level 17 fighter with 4 attacks + one bonus and a +11 mod, attacking AC 20, has only a 1.8% chance of missing all five attacks. The absolute minimum chance for mobs to succeed on a DC is 5%; in practice it will probably be 20% or higher.

Point is, a caster casting a spell most likely isn't doing much, if anything, else that turn. And the caster has a much higher chance of his turn being wasted, particularly as levels progress.

There was an old D&D comic where the wizard tells the fighter something to the effect of "the difference between us is that, no matter what you do, there's a 1 in 20 chance that it goes horribly wrong". 5th edition kind of feels like the opposite of that.

[Psikerlord]

Yes, that's true, but that's still pretty lame (imho) when the enemy comes immediately after you in the initiative order and they have failed their first save. That means you spent your turn (and a spell slot), and got them to fail a save, only to make them miss one turn. It's not worthless (and certainly situationally useful), but kind of lame when one of the big perks of the spell is the paralyzed condition allowing your melee buddies to roll attacks with advantage and any hit is a critical.

I just don't like how the spell's effectiveness seems so dependent on initiative order (leading to the previously mentioned suggestion by another poster of readying actions so as to try and work around that). If the save was hinged to the caster's turn, the effect would be more uniform as failing a save would cause the enemy to be paralyzed for at least one round (in the sense that every other enemy and PC would get one turn before another save was allowed).We use the old delay action to avoid this kind of initiative problem. Eg: initiative is rolled monster goes first, wizard goes last, rest of party in between. Wizard delays to go immediately after the monster (ie, wizard loses his first turn on round 1, to get a more optimal place in the iniative order during round 2). So round 2, monsters goes, wizard next and hold persons him, then party wails on monster until round 3. Works well enough.

[TrollCapAmerica]

The point is that casting a SoL (even in the old, better versions that didn't allow saves every round) is a one-event, several-second thing that doesn't even involve a die roll. The fighter might miss with all his attacks, but at least the player got to do a lot more on his turn. My players preferred damaging spells and attack roll spells specifically because it made taking their turns more exciting.

There are few things less exciting than losing equal CR encounters because of seriously sub-optimal choices. Despite all the fame optimized PCs got in 3.5 a great number of monsters would absolutely wreck a party if they weren't prepared. A Gablezu with at will teleport chaos hammer and reverse gravity would embarrass any martial class while laughing off blasty magic thanks to DR SR resistance huge saves and massive HP compared to spell damage potential

People usually avoided SoD stuff unless A) it's targeting a bad save and B) they know they won't face reprisal immediately if it fails. Save end effects are worse versions of that. Thing is that's just fine for a lower level spell if you can get away with it but a higher level spell is just to demanding a toll for that big a weakness. Your better off using a spell that's definitely going to something even if it's maneuvering/BFC/Buffing

[Easy_Lee]

People usually avoided SoD stuff unless A) it's targeting a bad save and B) they know they won't face reprisal immediately if it fails. Save end effects are worse versions of that. Thing is that's just fine for a lower level spell if you can get away with it but a higher level spell is just to demanding a toll for that big a weakness

Would alter what you said slightly: decent players avoided spamming SoD spells on everything, but you know that theoretical munchkin who 95% of the board never played with gets more attention around here.

I agree with everything you said. Generally speaking, I don't think that a spell ought to resolve an do nothing because that's just not fun. That said, it's fairly hard to balance spells like finger of death, "Merlin's Middle Finger", otherwise.

I'm rather fond of the idea that spells could have weaker effects on a fail. I'd consider making hold person halve the target's move on a save if a player brought it up.

[Laurefindel]

Would alter what you said slightly: decent players avoided spamming SoD spells on everything

Looks like I knew a few indecent players then... However, the DM was rolling openly in a "let the dice fall where they are" type of game. Perhaps that changed the perception that the DM would simply hand-waved the SoD effect, declaring that the save was passed.

[hachface]

That means you spent your turn (and a spell slot), and got them to fail a save, only to make them miss one turn. It's not worthless (and certainly situationally useful), but kind of lame when one of the big perks of the spell is the paralyzed condition allowing your melee buddies to roll attacks with advantage and any hit is a critical.

Making an enemy lose a turn and take auto-crits not situationally useful -- it is just about always useful, and you are seriously underrating how powerful it is. Fifth edition combat resolves quickly, typically in about three rounds. Monster challenge ratings are balanced around a trade-off between attack and defense: the harder a creature hits, the lower its defenses and the fewer hit points it has. Denying a high-damage and low-defense creature even one turn of action while turning all attacks against it into critical hits and forcing it to fail Dexterity saving throws is extremely powerful. It means that the enemy party's damage output will be drastically reduced and all but guarantees the high-damage monster's death if the PCs focus fire.

And of course hold person has some of the best scaling of any spell in the game. Casting it with a fifth-level slot can trivialize an encounter.

[Talderas]

Making an enemy lose a turn and take auto-crits not situationally useful -- it is just about always useful, and you are seriously underrating how powerful it is.

I don't think anyone is underestimating it however let's look at the following initiative order for when you cast Hold Person.

23 : Rogue (Friendly)
16 : Fighter (Friendly)
15 : You
13 : Your Target
9 : Cleric (Friendly)
4 : Your Target's allies

Depending on whether your target makes the save at the end of his turn has a drastic difference in effect and outcome. If he does then you basically used your turn to deny the target his turn. If he fails then your party gets auto-crits against the target. So the answer is to start engaging in delay action shenanigans for an edition of the game that on the surface appears to be trying to simplifer the rules and game.

[rhouck]

Making an enemy lose a turn and take auto-crits not situationally useful -- it is just about always useful, and you are seriously underrating how powerful it is. Fifth edition combat resolves quickly, typically in about three rounds. Monster challenge ratings are balanced around a trade-off between attack and defense: the harder a creature hits, the lower its defenses and the fewer hit points it has. Denying a high-damage and low-defense creature even one turn of action while turning all attacks against it into critical hits and forcing it to fail Dexterity saving throws is extremely powerful. It means that the enemy party's damage output will be drastically reduced and all but guarantees the high-damage monster's death if the PCs focus fire.

And of course hold person has some of the best scaling of any spell in the game. Casting it with a fifth-level slot can trivialize an encounter.

You misread my post. I specifically noted that the turning all attacks into critical hits part is what makes the spell powerful and is near-always useful. BUT....


I don't think anyone is underestimating it however let's look at the following initiative order for when you cast Hold Person.

23 : Rogue (Friendly)
16 : Fighter (Friendly)
15 : You
13 : Your Target
9 : Cleric (Friendly)
4 : Your Target's allies

Depending on whether your target makes the save at the end of his turn has a drastic difference in effect and outcome. If he does then you basically used your turn to deny the target his turn. If he fails then your party gets auto-crits against the target. So the answer is to start engaging in delay action shenanigans for an edition of the game that on the surface appears to be trying to simplifer the rules and game.

... this can happen. In which case if the target is only losing one turn and not suffering any of the other effects, that is more situationally useful. Unless you engage in the above-described delay action shenanigans which, to me, feels a bit hokey and metagamey (since the only reason the wizard is delaying casting is to delay the second saving throw and optimize the initiative order). It's the smart solution which players can (and do) engage in, I just wish they didn't have to make that choice.

[Talderas]

We use the old delay action to avoid this kind of initiative problem. Eg: initiative is rolled monster goes first, wizard goes last, rest of party in between. Wizard delays to go immediately after the monster (ie, wizard loses his first turn on round 1, to get a more optimal place in the iniative order during round 2). So round 2, monsters goes, wizard next and hold persons him, then party wails on monster until round 3. Works well enough.

I just want to say that I find this behavior annoying. I hate the idea or concept of giving up an action and initiative advantage because of how the initiative order turned out.

[RedMage125]

It's also worth mentioning that while they nerfed most Save or Lose various ways, they did not nerf all such spells, and they did not nerf minions (Animate/Find/Conjure). So its basically just shifted the metagame selection to a different spells while creating a sub-optimal selection of spells that far fewer players will use.

That's been an intentional direction the designers were headed in for the past 2 editions. And the math for them is simple. Based on the number of encounters that PCs face, statistically they will be exposed to Save or Lose effects more than they will be inflicting them.

At some point, we need to consider that this is a game, it's supposed to be fun, and while the cincematic nature of such effects may be something that resonates with a sense of fantasy adventure, how much fun is it for a player whose character has full hp to now be dead (and may need to make a new character) just because of a single save?


Actually most if not all petrification effects in 4e were permanent until cured. Usually, though, you needed to fail more than one save for the effect to take place. The typical 4e petrification effect would first slow a target, then immobilize him after the first failed save, and then finally petrify on the last failed save.

It was somewhat elegant on paper but in practice it just meant that petrification never happened.

I dunno, I had it happen a few times. Petrification cures weren't that hard to come by (as I remember, the blood of the medusa who stoned you could be used to free you). Those handful off "Petrified (save ends)" reminded me of Castlevania Symphony of the Night when you got petrified and had to shake your way free. I imagine the stone starting to crack and eventually the person bursts out of the statue.

[Chronos]

The thing is, if you're playing a caster, and you can't stomach the possibility that you might accomplish nothing on your turn, you already have options. You can choose to just use a damaging spell, or a spell that doesn't have a save at all. You don't need to change anything about the way casters work; you can already do that.

Meanwhile, if a fighter finds something with an AC too high for him to hit, his options are jack and squat. Yes, a 17th-level fighter has pretty good odds against something with 20 AC, but what about a low-level fighter trying to hit that same AC? It's not like 20 AC is hard to come by-- You don't even need any magic to get that.

[Forum Explorer]

The thing is, if you're playing a caster, and you can't stomach the possibility that you might accomplish nothing on your turn, you already have options. You can choose to just use a damaging spell, or a spell that doesn't have a save at all. You don't need to change anything about the way casters work; you can already do that.


Basically this. Are spellcasters weak or ineffective? No? Then why are you buffing them? It's the same thing with the druid wildshape thread.

[Easy_Lee]

Basically this. Are spellcasters weak or ineffective? No? Then why are you buffing them? It's the same thing with the druid wildshape thread.

Actually, wildshape druids are too strong at some levels and their forms are weak and ineffective at others. But that's information for another thread.

Regarding the fighter above, "low level" is vague, but let's just examine level 5.Average AC for CR5 mobs is 15, according to this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?387385-Monster-Stat-By-CR-(Now-with-better-damage-resistance-info!)&highlight=CR). But there is one AC 20 in that range, so we'll use that.

To keep the fighter's bonus low, I'll assume he started with 16 STR and is a polearm master sentinel bro. Three attacks at +3 and +3 prof I believe, so +6 total mod. He needs to roll a 14 or better to hit AC 20, 7 in 20 rolls or 35% chance to hit per attack, 65% chance to miss. His odds of missing all three are (0.65)^3=27.4%.

So even against the tankiest CR5, a fighter with effectively the minimum to hit we would expect from him at that level still does at least some damage 75% of the time. I'd say that's pretty consistent.