Better to Fail Saving Throws

[Erth16]

Earlier today I remembered a joke monster I made a couple years ago, where the only really threatening attack it had was a save or die. Now the weird part about it is you died from the attack if you first failed a will save, but then passed a fort save, meaning that if you failed both you wouldn't die. That got me thinking, what if there were a group of spells or a class based around having the negative result be based around the target passing their saving throw, and failing the save having a lesser or no effect. These would of course be mixed in with the normal spells in play, and could bring more diversity of character, in a sense. Should I take the cloak of resistance, or should I leave it in case we encounter that nasty spell that stuns you if you pass a fort save.

I was just wondering what other people thought about this concept.

[Maxrim]

There wouldn't be a great deal of point unless you put in a note that they can't voluntarily fail, seeing as how you can normally do that. I don't think it's a great idea, as punishing players for trying not to die is going to definitely come across as arbitrary DM BS.

Edit: From here:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magic.html

"Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell's result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality."

[Sacrieur]

I've never done that, but I have on occasion tiered them. That is to say that it fools them into thinking something is an illusion when it isn't. For instance:

1-10: Subject believes the object is not an illusion.
11-20: Subject believes the object is an illusion.
21+: Subject knows the object is not an illusion.

It is entertaining to watch players get confused when this happens. It's just one of those quirks in my world that just because you got a high number doesn't mean you got high enough of a number. In my world, NPCs aren't stupid and may alter spells or powers against more powerful creatures to trick them. By sprinkling these sorts of encounters throughout your campaign, you can help combat meta-game knowledge since the rules aren't functioning like they do in the rule book.

[Twurps]

Just have them pass a reflex save to save the party from a grenade (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?423131-Bad-DM-Or-am-I-just-off-base-here-%28Updated%29).

More seriously (assuming you bypass the: 'fail voluntary bit'): Most players (including myself) wouldn't appreciate 'save or die's' being converted to 'save and die's' as:
-Surviving gets to be completely arbitrary. (With perceived DM BS as Maxrim mentioned)
-Character building is halfway out the window. (Why build for high saves if low ones benefit me just as much. With a game like that: What's to say the same won't happen with BAB, CL, etc.)

On the ohter hand: We have a good group going on, and I trust my DM. So if he decides to have a 'Save and suck' in a game at some point, just for laughs, and without any permanent negative effects, I'm pretty sure he could get away with that, and that might very well become a very memorable event.

[sovin_ndore]

This reminds me alot of the old 3.5 Shadowcraft Mage builds, creating Illusions that are more real if you disbelieve them (120%).

[jiriku]

I have seen adaptations of this for D&D borrowing from Chaosium's original Call of Cthulhu game. In CofC, if you saw a horrible mythos entity, you would lose some sanity. You then made a sort of mythos knowledge check; in D&D parlance it was essentially a Will save with bonuses based on your ranks in Knowledge: the planes. If you failed this save, your brain couldn't comprehend what it was seeing, or couldn't handle the knowledge and later on your memory of the event would be hazy. But if you passed the save, then you really understood the implications of a universe where such truly horrible entities could exist, and you lost a LOT more sanity. Characters with a great deal of mythos knowledge were more powerful than other characters and had much greater ability to directly confront and battle mythos monsters, but such characters were basically glass cannons, very likely to lose their minds and meet a horrible end as a result of passing too many mythos knowledge checks.

[Kurald Galain]

In the Toon RPG, if you accidentally walk off a cliff, you can make an intelligence check. If you fail, you get to keep walking.

[Pex]

In a recent game I purposely cast Bestow Curse on some party members with them volunteering to fail the saving throw. I cursed them to lose their sense of smell, enabling them to fight advanced troglodyte creatures without fear of becoming nauseated. It was a spur of the moment outside the box thinking on my part they found a good idea, and it worked. The combat became a cakewalk.

[Sacrieur]

I have seen adaptations of this for D&D borrowing from Chaosium's original Call of Cthulhu game. In CofC, if you saw a horrible mythos entity, you would lose some sanity. You then made a sort of mythos knowledge check; in D&D parlance it was essentially a Will save with bonuses based on your ranks in Knowledge: the planes. If you failed this save, your brain couldn't comprehend what it was seeing, or couldn't handle the knowledge and later on your memory of the event would be hazy. But if you passed the save, then you really understood the implications of a universe where such truly horrible entities could exist, and you lost a LOT more sanity. Characters with a great deal of mythos knowledge were more powerful than other characters and had much greater ability to directly confront and battle mythos monsters, but such characters were basically glass cannons, very likely to lose their minds and meet a horrible end as a result of passing too many mythos knowledge checks.

You can't choose to fail knowledge checks though.

[sovin_ndore]

You can't choose to fail knowledge checks though.
Wouldn't that mean it works better as a mechanic than the 'fail-to-win' will save initially proposed?

[Oneris]

Layering an illusion over something that harms you if you experience it is a classic one. Explosive Runes, Sepia Snake Sigil, Medusa etc. Good way of rooting out those with True Seeing.

It actually reminds me of a story where teleportation is a means of transit, but they have to sedate you first, and a little boy tried escaping the sedation only to find out that being awake during the teleportation process drives you completely insane.

[Pex]

Layering an illusion over something that harms you if you experience it is a classic one. Explosive Runes, Sepia Snake Sigil, Medusa etc. Good way of rooting out those with True Seeing.

It actually reminds me of a story where teleportation is a means of transit, but they have to sedate you first, and a little boy tried escaping the sedation only to find out that being awake during the teleportation process drives you completely insane.

I know that story. You go insane because in the teleportation you enter a space that is all pure whiteness with no concept of time. Your mind has nothing to process or react to for an eternity.

[TheifofZ]

The point of saving throws is to negate the worst possible result on a success, and in general, D&D is a game where rolling high results on the dice feel good.
If I succeed on an attack roll, I'd be very upset indeed if the DM said 'no, I'm sorry, you had to roll -below- ac to hit'.

In the same vein, succeeding on a saving throw shouldn't cause me to suffer the worst result (except for hiding things with illusions).
But it's one thing for the DM to say "you see through the illusion, read 'I prepared explosive runes this morning' and explode" and another to say "good job, you succeed on the save and promptly die. You should have tried to fail instead."
That also means that, in those situations, higher level parties (that is: the reward players get for working through lower levels to earn power through items and experience) are more likely to be screwed. 4 level fighters are less likely to make a fort save than a 12th level fighter, for instance, so after a certain point in power, the players are far more likely to be punished by such an effect.
If I'm being punished for putting in effort to earn power and become stronger so I can succeed in whatever it is my character's goal is, that isn't fun.
That's the kind of thing I put down my dice and walk away from the table because of.

[Kantolin]

Shadow Conjuration can do that, particularly if it's something you would rather rely on. A shadow conjured stone bridge or similar is something you want to fail your save on, for example.

Invisible spell also can cause some shenanigans.

In general, however, you indeed want the 'failed saves are better' to be clever, and not punishing.

[Jack_Simth]

Yeah. A Shadow Evocation Wall of Ice floor is a fun one for breaking up the party. A greater Shadow Conjouration Wall of stone is particularly mind-bendy: It's an Instant effect that allows spell resistance and a will save to possibly walk through it. No magic, but defences that only work on magic will let you walk through it ... wait, what?