Your opinion on Save or Die spells

[Spore]

I'll be blunt and aggravating. I hate them, they are by far the worst thing in 3.x/PF. They don't punish stupid plays, they only really reward the paranoid players who seem to have a (spell) counter to everything prior to casting it. The situations they create are not organic but random. To kill off small mooks - either to simplify combat or to show off how big and bad the PC/villain is - spells like Blasphemy or Fireball are far better. Otherwise to create defeated enemies I much rather prefer Save or Suck spells.

My DM(s) both don't love those spells but they respect and use them regularly. And to be honest: Only one of my five PC deaths was due to a particularly unlucky crit (as well as playing the main frontliner with a d8 class and Con 14). Two died from Disintegrates, one from a quickened Phantasmal Killer (PF Bogeyman) and one from a Destruction spell (backstabbing PC).

Now comes the twist: I really really like the fluff behind them. Spells so powerful they kill you instantly. But there should always be a way to prepare for something like that (and by prepare I don't mean buffing your saves out of the wazoo). Most of them don't require to "hit" you (the hero dodging the lethal wizard zap is a classical maneuver) and the variety of them makes it quite easy for the DM to target the save you are most likely not even good in. Fighter? Well, here's a Blasphemy for you. Rogue? Take that Destruction spell. Wizard? Finger of Death. In addition to that, even good saves don't scale as well as spell DCs do. A decent necromancer can hit my 11th level Fighter/Paladin with a Fort save of +21 with a DC 30 or above.

[Quertus]

They are bad on the hands of players with DMs that fudge, because said DMs invariably don't want their BBEG to go down like a chump. Which, IME, would usually make for a better sorry than what they fudge for.

IME, games with DMs who ban save or die are won by stat drain. Which is my least favorite style of play. And also makes it easy to target weaknesses.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is just a taste thing. I don't particularly like or dislike them and I'm willing to use them sparingly to amp the tension in simply encountering an enemy spellcaster or to remind the PC's that adventuring is -dangerous- when you're exploring trapped sites.

Getting ganked by a single failed save sucks but it's just resource sink unless you houserule death reversing magic to be rare or unavailable.

[Eloel]

They're good PvP spells, and aren't really good for much else.

[Shpadoinkle]

As a player: I think they're anti-fun and I hate them. Honestly, I would prefer they simply not exist. Failing a single roll and then not being able to do anything for the rest of the evening sucks out loud.

As a DM: PCs can use them all they want, but NPCs won't. Why? See above. Also, NPCs are going to have resources and other advantages that the PCs won't have, so as far as I'm concerned it's okay for the PCs to have powers the NPCs don't.

[mauk2]

As a player: I think they're anti-fun and I hate them. Honestly, I would prefer they simply not exist. Failing a single roll and then not being able to do anything for the rest of the evening sucks out loud.


THIS.

OMG, so much this. Gaming is a social activity and should be fun, to some degree, for all involved.

Any referee that thinks this kind of crap is fun for anybody should get out from behind the GM screen and preferably go sit in a room by themselves forever.

Or, more productively, try to develop enough social skills to be a human being worth speaking to.

[BWR]

I like them. I use them sparingly as a DM and prefer not to run into them every encounter as a player but I want them in the games I play and run.
One of my complaints against PF is that they nerfed a lot of the SoD spells to just another damage spell (though 3e started it with their nerf of Disintegrate).

[Faily]

I don't mind Save or Die, from either side of the table. I've used it on PCs and I've had it used on my PCs.

At some points, a well-prepared group just yawns at the damage-dealing spells because most of those are elemental-aligned and a single third level spells protects the party from it almost completely (Mass Resist Energy or Communal Resist Energy). I find that the nail-biting moments of a Save or Die makes things much more interesting and exciting... yes, and I say that even as someone on the recieving end of a Disintigrate, Phantasmal Killer, or Destruction.

I find it just as dramatic and part of storytelling to have a hero jump in front of a wizard's death beam and "take one for the team", only to die in his heroic effort (you are of course free to fluff your death-scene!), as it is to have the hero dodge the wizard's death beam.

[Amphetryon]

As a player: I think they're anti-fun and I hate them. Honestly, I would prefer they simply not exist. Failing a single roll and then not being able to do anything for the rest of the evening sucks out loud.

As a DM: PCs can use them all they want, but NPCs won't. Why? See above. Also, NPCs are going to have resources and other advantages that the PCs won't have, so as far as I'm concerned it's okay for the PCs to have powers the NPCs don't.

Do you use high Initiative NPCs/monsters with Pounce or Improved Grapple?

[ganondorf50]

As a DM I love them but I DO NOT use them often. Its one of those things where its fun to all of a sudden see the players fudge their pants. IE I made a 3.5 advanced medusa from 2E in 2e advanced medusas had poisoned blood if the blood gets on you save or die. So I had a bottle medusa blood and the idiot player drinks it long story and I say roll a CON save

Player don't you mean fort ?

Me as DM nope Con please DC 15 or Die

The look on his face Priceless

He dies but he did it to himself the players and I never let him live it down that he willingly drank poison

I feel the same about spells but I feel this is similar too

[ericgrau]

They're actually pretty weak against most monsters. Most monsters that matter will save, have SR or are outright immune. Most monsters that don't matter will also drop right away from damage too. The problem is that they're too swingy. If the BBEG rolls a 1, the fight is over and it's pretty anti-climatic. He got lucky, sure, but it sucks to end a campaign on luck like that.

They are stronger against PCs and NPCs with class levels though, since their saves and SR are worse. Such a BBEG that hasn't defended himself properly via magic items, spells, lots of henchmen, or etc. is in trouble. This also means they are much scarier in the hands of monsters when used against players, and that can be a problem. PvP is a bad example though, when D&D is PvE.

Mass save-or-X spells are much better, but they tend to be save-or-suck not save-or-die.

[Zanos]

I think it's kind of rude to use them on players, because it tends to matter when players die. Team monster only needs to win once to end the campaign, and if you use enough save or dies against players, they're going to fail a roll eventually. It's worth noting that many monsters don't need spells to do this anyway. Petrification is fairly common on lowish CR enemies.

Players using them is fine. Many common enemies tend to be immune to death or fear effects, which SoDs tend to be until very high levels, and they usually carry a fortitude save, which is much higher than will or reflex on most monsters, especially those with a lot of hit points that would be hard to take down otherwise.

They're also somewhat over-rated Usually it's easier to deal so much damage that anything you attack dies in one turn then it is to optimize your save DCs and worm your way around immunities so your save or die effects are reliable.

[Faily]

Eh, I find that around the levels where things like Destruction and such kick in, the party already has the means to bring fallen party members back to life.

And let's be honest here, a lot of stuff is Save or Die, given the right situation at the right levels.

Color Spray is a Save or Die at level 1 and 2. Sure, you don't *die* from the spell when failing your Will save, but being Stunned and Unconscious tends to have bad side-effects.
Fireball is easily a Save or Die situation for a Wizard or Sorcerer that hasn't had the time to put on Resist Energy yet, considering their often squishy nature and Reflex isn't one of their strongest areas.
Meeting an Orc in Pathfinder at first level is a lethal scenario for most characters, and you don't even get a save!


I agree that is sucks to die. It really does. Man, I've lost so many cool characters to meat-grinders (I'm looking at you, Savage Tide) and it always blows to have to open up the book during the session to start making a new character while the others are rolling on. But adventuring is dangerous business, and I do want to have real danger for the heroes to overcome. If there is never any real chance of dying, how can the heroes be truly heroic?

... And sometimes your death isn't even heroic, like when your head is lopped off from a Razor-tusk Boar with Vorpal Tusks...

Point is, it's totally fine to not run with Save or Die stuff at your table. As long as everyone is cool with that! I just prefer to have more danger in my adventure. :smallwink:

[Crake]

Fighter? Well, here's a Blasphemy for you.

You make it sound like fighters are worse at resisting blasphemy than anyone else? You realise blasphemy is a no save spell right? The save listed in it's entry is for the banishment effect when someone uses it on their home plane against extraplanar creatures, not to prevent the effects. If the CL is your HD+10, it's a no save, just die spell, or no save just suck at CL+5. Against a boss-like dude (read, an enemy cleric at least 1 level above you), karma beads and a blasphemy is party wipe material, short of having spell resistance or spell immunity for blasphemy

[Darth Ultron]

As a player: I think they're anti-fun and I hate them. Honestly, I would prefer they simply not exist. Failing a single roll and then not being able to do anything for the rest of the evening sucks out loud.


The idea of a single roll ending the game for a character is a basic, fundamental part of the game. When you take that away, your changing the game. It's like playing bumper bowling: no matter what you will not get a gutter ball.

So if your playing the New Age way with things like more hit points, optimization, no character death and a general bias in favor of the players...then yes, you just just delete all the save or die spells.

If no character in your game can be killed by ''one roll'' of anything, that should include spells as well.

[Crake]

The idea of a single roll ending the game for a character is a basic, fundamental part of the game. When you take that away, your changing the game. It's like playing bumper bowling: no matter what you will not get a gutter ball.

So if your playing the New Age way with things like more hit points, optimization, no character death and a general bias in favor of the players...then yes, you just just delete all the save or die spells.

If no character in your game can be killed by ''one roll'' of anything, that should include spells as well.

Sounds basically like 5e to me.

[Anlashok]

The idea of a single roll ending the game for a character is a basic, fundamental part of the game. When you take that away, your changing the game. It's like playing bumper bowling: no matter what you will not get a gutter ball.

That seems to imply your only way to threaten characters is with random SoD spells and if that the case it seems more like a personal issue, rather than necessitating SoDs as a cornerstone of good D&D.

[ganondorf50]

I think it's kind of rude to use them on players, because it tends to matter when players die. Team monster only needs to win once to end the campaign, and if you use enough save or dies against players, they're going to fail a roll eventually. It's worth noting that many monsters don't need spells to do this anyway. Petrification is fairly common on lowish CR enemies.

Players using them is fine. Many common enemies tend to be immune to death or fear effects, which SoDs tend to be until very high levels, and they usually carry a fortitude save, which is much higher than will or reflex on most monsters, especially those with a lot of hit points that would be hard to take down otherwise.

They're also somewhat over-rated Usually it's easier to deal so much damage that anything you attack dies in one turn then it is to optimize your save DCs and worm your way around immunities so your save or die effects are reliable.

If the party is dealing with those kind of spells they have access to ressurection magic so I quite disagree. Especially if they have a cleric. As for petrification thats a chance the party will have to take.

[SangoProduction]

As a player: I think they're anti-fun and I hate them. Honestly, I would prefer they simply not exist. Failing a single roll and then not being able to do anything for the rest of the evening sucks out loud.

As a DM: PCs can use them all they want, but NPCs won't. Why? See above. Also, NPCs are going to have resources and other advantages that the PCs won't have, so as far as I'm concerned it's okay for the PCs to have powers the NPCs don't.

I had a game with a pretty good dm...but he actually pulled out t1 tactics on the first combat, when no one optimized for it. Entangle, now 4/5 of the party is stuck. And then deep slumber or some ****, and I am asleep for 100 turns. lol.

"OK, so who's up for some pizza? I'll see you in about two hours, once you're all done being pincushions and I finally wake up."

[Quertus]

As a player: I think they're anti-fun and I hate them. Honestly, I would prefer they simply not exist. Failing a single roll and then not being able to do anything for the rest of the evening sucks out loud.


THIS.

OMG, so much this. Gaming is a social activity and should be fun, to some degree, for all involved.

This (and every other lethal thing in D&D) is why you let players run NPCs when their character drops, let players run multiple characters, or otherwise have a plan that involve players getting to participate. If they want to.


I agree that is sucks to die. It really does. Man, I've lost so many cool characters to meat-grinders (I'm looking at you, Savage Tide) and it always blows to have to open up the book during the session to start making a new character while the others are rolling on.

I just prefer to have more danger in my adventure. :smallwink:

Make a new character... when your character dies? You mean you didn't just bring a folder with 37 more copies of your bard? :smallwink:

[NichG]

Personally I like there to be some sure-kill but sure-avoidance in the game. That is, things which you just cannot tough out no matter how optimized/etc you are, but which are 100% avoidable at some cost. That kind of thing enables there to be forcing moves, which allows for characters to maneuver beings even much more powerful than themselves and vice versa.

The important thing is the 100%/100% aspect. If it's like 25% chance of death some players will believe too much in their luck, die, and get pissed off about it. If it's only a 75% chance to avoid, it's broken 25% of the time. It needs to be something like a law of nature - when you hit -10hp you are dead, and when you voluntarily step into the death zone you are dead.

[fishyfishyfishy]

As a DM I have no issues spamming these types of spells at my players. They don't mind either. It's all fair play. They are usually buffed up to be immune to most death effects anyway so it rarely kills. They have a full time cleric in the party who has revivify and other such magics prepped at all times as well.

[Pex]

Nitpick: Pathfinder does not have save or die spells with the exception of Phantasmal Killer.

Save or die spells are a problem because it is The Suck to have your character die over a single die roll. The solution is just to replace them. As for save or suck spells, I'm ok with them. It is The Suck to be a victim of one, but the solution is to mitigate them like Pathfinder does. There are remove affliction spells (Remove Fear, Remove Paralysis, Remove Curse etc.) that do away with The Suck. Another way is the spell itself allows a saving throw each round to end The Suck (Hold Person, Glitterdust, etc.). They should exist because spellcaster players should be able to do stuff to harm the enemy. If you have resentment towards spellcaster/warrior power discrepancy that's a separate issue, but the concept of a spellcaster PC casting a spell that causes The Suck condition against the enemy is a perfectly fine thing to exist.

[Âmesang]

The last time I can remember using a traditional "save-or-die" spell was many years ago; 'twas a DC 25 finger of death against an epic necromancer with a Fortitude of +21. "Oh, all I have to do is roll '4' or higher," said the DM, smugly.

He rolled a '3.' :smalltongue:

Much more recently when I ran a game I sicced some bodaks against the party, but the only death (another necromancer, oddly enough) was due to a roll of '1' — '2' or higher and he'd have made it; but they had scrolls of true resurrection, anyway, and a succubus bard (disguised as an angel) to use 'em (Use Magic Device). It's also why I would later suggest, as a player, to spend some party funds on a wand of deathward.

[Shpadoinkle]

Do you use high Initiative NPCs/monsters with Pounce or Improved Grapple?

If I think they have a nonzero chance of surviving it, yeah, I'll use stuff like that.


The idea of a single roll ending the game for a character is a basic, fundamental part of the game.

Neat. I disagree.


When you take that away, your changing the game.

Hey, you know what? Rule 0 is a thing. I'm fine tailoring the game to get the kind of experience I want to have with it.


It's like playing bumper bowling: no matter what you will not get a gutter ball.

Cool hyperbole. PCs can totally die in games I run. To repeat: I just think it's completely anti-fun to get one bad roll and not be able to do anything for the next few hours.


So if your playing the New Age way with things like more hit points, optimization, no character death and a general bias in favor of the players...then yes, you just just delete all the save or die spells.

Just out of curiosity, when did I ever say I did or included things like that, barring the last thing? And I actually don't even go that far; I just don't have NPCs use them against the PCs. They still exist and PCs are completely free to load up on nothing BUT save-or-die/suck/lose spells if they want. But, as a player, I don't enjoy having them thrown at me, so I don't throw them at my players.


If no character in your game can be killed by ''one roll'' of anything, that should include spells as well.

Not sure what you're saying here, honestly, can you elaborate or rephrase?

[Telonius]

I generally don't use them before the players are about level 12 or so. By that point they've had access to Raise Dead for a few levels, and have had a chance to save up a few thousand gp's worth of diamond dust. I also never target the Cleric unless I know for certain they have a scroll handy (or they're fighting a Cleric of a directly opposed deity, like Gruumsh/Corellon, Garl Glittergold/Kurtulmak, Hieroneus/Hextor, something like that). If you're that high of a level and aren't prepared to overcome a character death, them's the breaks.

[Spore]

I agree that adventuring should be dangerous and the risk of real death should be a given. But SoDs are just so classless. They are a threat but nothing short of very specific counterplays (Spell Immunity, Death Ward etc.) can prevent that. Also more often than not the players don't know anything about the upcoming encounters.


The idea of a single roll ending the game for a character is a basic, fundamental part of the game. When you take that away, your changing the game. It's like playing bumper bowling: no matter what you will not get a gutter ball.

So if your playing the New Age way with things like more hit points, optimization, no character death and a general bias in favor of the players...then yes, you just just delete all the save or die spells.

If no character in your game can be killed by ''one roll'' of anything, that should include spells as well.

That being said at least my group plays P&P as a form of storytelling. Yes, a death from a Medusa or the Bogeyman is a very stylish thing and can drive the story. But relying on inflationary high magic is just bad encounter design. Basically I would use SoDs only if someone capable of ressing is present in the party. On the guy killed by the Bogeyman, I even preferred the group druid bringing me back as a goblin instead of waiting for the heroes to carry me back to the clergy (a full fifteen minutes) because I feel it's much more engaging for all of the group to solve problems with their own ressources.

On the player bias: I really really dislike that notion. I play(ed) under two DMs. One creates encounters as a form of storytelling, the other goes all out and creates a real challenge. And while the first only kills stubborn PCs in some sort of "personalized" quest (ie. duel to the death), the other has blown us out of the water with an unlucky crit during a siege (crit cards are like that) and a fight vs. a Balor on 10th level (with a second health bar due to the light protecting us) and still the Magus died.

tl;dr Killing people for stupid moves is fine. It's just not fine to kill them for showing up.

[HammeredWharf]

I think they're great if used sparingly and appropriately. In my games, random low-level wizards don't throw around SoDs just to see if someone happens to fail a save. However, if the party is fighting a famous high-level necromancer, they'd better be prepared for spells like Finger of Death or Wail of the Banshee. Additionally, in high level games many of them are fair play not only because of resurrection spells, but also because access to Death Ward is cheap and easy.



Hey, you know what? Rule 0 is a thing. I'm fine tailoring the game to get the kind of experience I want to have with it.

It's not even a Rule 0 thing. The DM has, by default, complete control of the monsters' abilities. If he doesn't want to use SoDs, no rule forces him to.

[Fizban]

I think some amount of SoD should exist as another form of attack vector, some monsters are just supposed to attack like that and planning for it is how you're supposed to beat them. If spells can counter it they should probably be allowed to mimic it if desired, magic is supposed to be able to do anything after all. An enemy spellcaster, the trick is figuring out what type of spells they favor before fighting them so you'll know how to prepare. Throwing SoDs (or metamagic abuse) at the players with no warning depends on how fair you'd consider using a similar monster.


But there should always be a way to prepare for something like that (and by prepare I don't mean buffing your saves out of the wazoo). Most of them don't require to "hit" you (the hero dodging the lethal wizard zap is a classical maneuver)
Looks like what you want are Action Points or Hero Points. Eberron uses Action Points as standard and Unearthed Arcana (or srd.org) has a slightly more powerful version. There are some feats and other variants that can give you similar abilities, but it's easiest to just let everyone have them rather than needing a specialized build. If the Save part of SoD doesn't allow enough player input then you add player input, action points let you add a d6 after you roll for a bit more room to roll bad, you get a pool that refreshes when you level up, it's your choice if you conserve them for defense or use them rashly on offense.

Hero Points (as I vaguely remember from Mutants and Masterminds but I'm sure other systems do similar) are more stingy: you start with one and only get them when you do something the table thinks is awesome (maybe also +1 per session), but you can't horde them (like 3 max?), and using one lets you just flat reroll a d20 (or pump up a power for a round, or shake off some conditions). I also like the DM agency: if the DM wants a bad guy to not fail a SoD on the first round, they can auto-succeed without cheating by giving the player who used the SoD a point in exchange. It's not a fair trade and shouldn't be abused but it's a compromise better than wasting a boss scene/cheating the player.

[Talya]

Technically, disintegrate is NOT a save or die spell.

It's a "save or take an somewhat relevant amount of damage" spell. It's actually rather weak as a spell with a save because it will NOT kill most monsters you use it against. Target that wizard PC, though, and he's dust.

[Red Fel]

I think that the bottom line is the difference between lethality and instant lethality.

In a given game, there can be desperate or unfortunate situations which lead to PC death. There can be bad decisions which lead to PC death. And that's fine and to be expected. If the idiot Barbarian decides to charge the Medusa headfirst without a plan or protection, darn right he's going to be a statue. If the Wizard haughtily decides that there's no need to check the dungeon for traps, a dart to the neck is a guarantee and he will have earned it. If the party gets overwhelmed by Kobolds, or Orcs, or Demons, or Twilight fans, it's an unfortunate situation that will probably have a high body count, and not necessarily every PC will survive. When the party fights the Dragon, he's probably going to end up eating one of them. These are all understandable circumstances of PC death. They're a natural assumption of the game (unless you're seriously playing with kid gloves).

But save-or-die spells are different. That's not a case of a PC's bad decision, or of fighting a foe that gradually wears you down, or of just being in a difficult scenario. It's a case of a single dice roll. A single roll that removes the player from the action.

Now, yes, if you're at 1 HP, and an enemy rolls well and hits you, you're dying. But you're not dying from that one roll, you're dying from that roll plus all the others leading up to it. And yes, at high levels, death is only a momentary obstacle. But if you're in the middle of a dungeon, or on another plane, or on the clock to stop the apocalypse, getting to a place where you can safely raise an ally might not happen this session.

That's the point. A save-or-die spell constitutes a complete reversal of fortune - and of fun - based on the result of a single roll. It's not predictable. It doesn't contribute to the narrative. It doesn't follow logically from the events preceding it. It is sudden, jarring, and disruptive to a player's fun. If it fails, it does absolutely nothing, and if it succeeds, it kicks a player out of the game for the remainder of the session - that's what I would consider a lose-lose.

Used against monsters, it's frequently unsuccessful (as cited above), and even if successful, highly anticlimactic.

Save-or-suck abilities are slightly less of a problem. They make for good battlefield control and tense situations. A PC who is suddenly momentarily paralyzed creates tension, because now the party needs to rescue him fast. And while save-or-suck abilities can be ultimately lethal, they aren't by default. A PC can recover from them, can even compensate for them. Rooted? Not a problem, I can still fight. Blinded? I can take a potion. Insane? It's okay, serious green sleeps furiously. You can work around them.

But death is pretty final.

[SimonMoon6]

As many have said, save-or-die spells ruin combat because it can come down to one die roll. And even if you have the super-tough fighter guy who can resist any spell requiring a FORT save, well, he can still roll a 1 and oops, he's dead.

But the worst part, the WORST part, of having save-or-die spells in a game is that it increases the amount of "death" in the game... which for balance reasons, leads to an increase in anti-death (resurrection) spells in the game... which then trivializes death and makes games have pretty much no consequences (other than a possible TPK).

[Necroticplague]

As a player using them, find them to be pointless. Everything worth using them on is either immune or far more likely to suceed than fail. Everything they work on can be dispatched by some other method with less resources.

As a player getting them used against them, hate them. Anticlimactic, no real solution except develop paranoid immunity to everything or pump saves, no real reaction to them, favor those who can develop immunities on their own instead of needing magic items (I.e, spellcasters). Nothing dramatic about them.

[Amphetryon]

If I think they have a nonzero chance of surviving it, yeah, I'll use stuff like that.

So, do you object to Save-or-Die Spells because you don't think the PCs have a nonzero chance of surviving it (pardon the double negative)? The only way I can see that being the case is if they could not make the save, at all.

[Shpadoinkle]

So, do you object to Save-or-Die Spells because you don't think the PCs have a nonzero chance of surviving it (pardon the double negative)? The only way I can see that being the case is if they could not make the save, at all.

No. I think PC death should be a possibility any time the PCs are doing something dangerous. I also think it's anti-fun to have a single instance of bad luck mean "you don't get to do anything for the rest of the evening."

Do you see Red Fel's post a few posts above this one? That pretty much sums up my objections to straight save-or-dies. As he pointed out, SoDs mean that either the NPC has wasted a round accomplishing nothing, or the targeted player gets to do nothing for a while while the rest of us play. I don't think either of those are good options. I don't think it's fun, I don't think it's interesting, and it's not something I want in my games.

Hypothetically, if it were an official rule in Monopoly that if a player ever rolls double 1s he instantly loses, no matter how much money or property he has, would you pay attention to that rule? Even if you did, I'm betting most people wouldn't.

[Quertus]

It's a case of a single dice roll. A single roll that removes the player from the action.


As a player getting them used against them, hate them. Anticlimactic, no real solution except develop paranoid immunity to everything or pump saves, no real reaction to them, favor those who can develop immunities on their own instead of needing magic items (I.e, spellcasters). Nothing dramatic about them.

As a player who loves rerolls (Fate of One, Luck domain, Resurgence, etc), I find the ideas of "a single die roll" / "no real reaction to them" to be... quaint. :smallwink: Everything you get to roll, you have the option of reacting to. It's just a matter of being willing to dedicate and expend the resources to do so.


But the worst part, the WORST part, of having save-or-die spells in a game is that it increases the amount of "death" in the game... which for balance reasons, leads to an increase in anti-death (resurrection) spells in the game... which then trivializes death and makes games have pretty much no consequences (other than a possible TPK).

Coming from the meat grinders of old, I agree with this mindset. However, I feel obliged to point out that, for some of the people I've played with, this chain (SoD effects resulting in a proliferation of resurrection resulting in death having no consequences) would be viewed as a feature, not a bug. YMMV.


I think that the bottom line is the difference between lethality and instant lethality.

In a given game, there can be desperate or unfortunate situations which lead to PC death. There can be bad decisions which lead to PC death. And that's fine and to be expected. If the idiot Barbarian decides to charge the Medusa headfirst without a plan or protection, darn right he's going to be a statue. If the Wizard haughtily decides that there's no need to check the dungeon for traps, a dart to the neck is a guarantee and he will have earned it. If the party gets overwhelmed by Kobolds, or Orcs, or Demons, or Twilight fans, it's an unfortunate situation that will probably have a high body count, and not necessarily every PC will survive. When the party fights the Dragon, he's probably going to end up eating one of them. These are all understandable circumstances of PC death. They're a natural assumption of the game (unless you're seriously playing with kid gloves).

But save-or-die spells are different. That's not a case of a PC's bad decision, or of fighting a foe that gradually wears you down, or of just being in a difficult scenario. It's a case of a single dice roll. A single roll that removes the player from the action.

Now, yes, if you're at 1 HP, and an enemy rolls well and hits you, you're dying. But you're not dying from that one roll, you're dying from that roll plus all the others leading up to it. And yes, at high levels, death is only a momentary obstacle. But if you're in the middle of a dungeon, or on another plane, or on the clock to stop the apocalypse, getting to a place where you can safely raise an ally might not happen this session.

That's the point. A save-or-die spell constitutes a complete reversal of fortune - and of fun - based on the result of a single roll. It's not predictable. It doesn't contribute to the narrative. It doesn't follow logically from the events preceding it. It is sudden, jarring, and disruptive to a player's fun. If it fails, it does absolutely nothing, and if it succeeds, it kicks a player out of the game for the remainder of the session - that's what I would consider a lose-lose.

Used against monsters, it's frequently unsuccessful (as cited above), and even if successful, highly anticlimactic.

Save-or-suck abilities are slightly less of a problem. They make for good battlefield control and tense situations. A PC who is suddenly momentarily paralyzed creates tension, because now the party needs to rescue him fast. And while save-or-suck abilities can be ultimately lethal, they aren't by default. A PC can recover from them, can even compensate for them. Rooted? Not a problem, I can still fight. Blinded? I can take a potion. Insane? It's okay, serious green sleeps furiously. You can work around them.

But death is pretty final.

If paralysis doesn't trigger the foes' held action to teleport the foe who was delaying to coup-de-grace with a x4 crit weapon... then, yeah, it doesn't have to be lethal. But it still takes the player out of the game - sometimes longer than being dead would. Heck, I've seen just being unconscious take players out of the game for multiple sessions.

The problem of taking the player out of the game is independent of Save or Die effects. If D&D isn't being played with kiddie gloves, you should expect that death will happen, and be prepared with how to keep things fun when characters die.

When save-or-die effects are used sparingly, they make "oh, you didn't take out the save-or-die engine before you blew through your wand of Resurgence, Dorje of Fate of One, three contingencies, and the party casters' entire stockpile of Dispel Magics for counter spells?" into a level of bad decision up there with beyond not checking for traps, or having the high fort save character attack the medusa.

[Troacctid]

Yeah, the problem with save-or-die spells (and save-or-lose spells like Baleful Polymorph or Dominate Person) is that there isn't any meaningful counterplay. You're either dead or you're not, and you can't really do anything about it. It's not a fun mechanic.

[Amphetryon]

No. I think PC death should be a possibility any time the PCs are doing something dangerous. I also think it's anti-fun to have a single instance of bad luck mean "you don't get to do anything for the rest of the evening."

Do you see Red Fel's post a few posts above this one? That pretty much sums up my objections to straight save-or-dies. As he pointed out, SoDs mean that either the NPC has wasted a round accomplishing nothing, or the targeted player gets to do nothing for a while while the rest of us play. I don't think either of those are good options. I don't think it's fun, I don't think it's interesting, and it's not something I want in my games.

Hypothetically, if it were an official rule in Monopoly that if a player ever rolls double 1s he instantly loses, no matter how much money or property he has, would you pay attention to that rule? Even if you did, I'm betting most people wouldn't.

Why is a Pounce monster exempt from the anti-fun objection? Given how often I see a single Surprise Round from a Pounce monster (coupled with high Initiative for the following Round) function just like a SoD with a Spot/Perception check subbing for the Save, I do not grok the distinction you're drawing that makes one anti-fun and not the other.

[mauk2]

That seems to imply your only way to threaten characters is with random SoD spells and if that the case it seems more like a personal issue, rather than necessitating SoDs as a cornerstone of good D&D.

Ouch. Harsh.

But, true.

If you have to resort to SoD's to get the old blood pumping, you're doin' it wrong. :)

Indeed, resorting to any situation where it's Save or Die, is kind of like giving up as a referee. How shameful. If you can't generate tension and excitement and interest at the table without resorting to a cheap gimmick like 'random death, haha!', then maybe you need to look at your playstyle a little bit.

Being a game master is, first and foremost, being a story teller. If you can't tell a compelling story, then no amount of game mechanics (even forcing players to make a saving throw or die) is going to save you.

[torrasque666]

Honestly? Not a fan. Not even when used by other players. If the wizard is just gonna cast a SoD on the enemy when I'm built for inflicting debuffs on them (for the BFS to smack around) or damage (because dice are fun to roll) then what's the fun in playing?

[mauk2]

Why is a Pounce monster exempt from the anti-fun objection?

In the game I'm writing with a buddy of mine, we removed nearly every instance of the Pounce mechanic, for a lot of reasons. It's a bad mechanic. So we trimmed it way the hell down.

Oh, and because people yelled at me: www.epicpath.org

You know, I need to figure out how signatures work on this board....

[Psyren]

They suck on both sides of the screen. Which is why I'm glad PF deleted most of them.


This (and every other lethal thing in D&D) is why you let players run NPCs when their character drops, let players run multiple characters, or otherwise have a plan that involve players getting to participate. If they want to.

Generally, the character they want to play is the one they're actually playing. Not some random NPC or a B-character they haven't glanced at for several sessions.

Even in those instances where you warn them ahead of time how lethal the game is going to be - something it doesn't even sound like the pro-SoD people are doing, at least not in this thread - even if they agree to that going in, after a few sessions (role)playing that character they're likely to become attached/invested. And at that point, ripping the rug out from under them with an ignominious and undramatic end just feels crappy. Responding by dangling an NPC in front of them just to keep them at the table seems akin to those parents who try to buy a new puppy to replace the one they ran over in front of the child, and give it the same name thinking they won't notice.

[torrasque666]

You know, I need to figure out how signatures work on this board....
Simple. You just go to the settings button up top, and then scroll down to "Edit Signature" on the settings page. Then edit it like a post.

[Necroticplague]

As a player who loves rerolls (Fate of One, Luck domain, Resurgence, etc), I find the ideas of "a single die roll" / "no real reaction to them" to be... quaint. :smallwink: Everything you get to roll, you have the option of reacting to. It's just a matter of being willing to dedicate and expend the resources to do so.
As someone who hates /day abilities because of the extra bookkeeping they entail, I find the idea that you deserve to die simply because you don't want to run a specific build that involves keeping track of more f****** resources to be.....irritating.

Not to mentions, this plays into the part where SoD unfairly effects martials and skillmonkeys, since they tend to have less access to such things.

[Psyren]

Why is a Pounce monster exempt from the anti-fun objection? Given how often I see a single Surprise Round from a Pounce monster (coupled with high Initiative for the following Round) function just like a SoD with a Spot/Perception check subbing for the Save, I do not grok the distinction you're drawing that makes one anti-fun and not the other.

Pounce has much more counterplay, even surprise pounce. In addition to the standbys of boosting your AC and miss chance, there's also terrain, marching order, reach weapons, pumping initiative, contingencies etc. And there's also the simple fact that melee attack rolls are the game's most common threat, so they're much more likely to be something the player is anticipating than, say, a touch attack + death effect.

[mauk2]

Simple. You just go to the settings button up top, and then scroll down to "Edit Signature" on the settings page. Then edit it like a post.

Oh. LOL!!

Here I was trying to find it under my profile, how silly of me.

Thank you sir! Have 100xp.

[ExLibrisMortis]

If an instant death, by definition putting you at -10 hp, is not acceptable, what about a near-instant death, at -1d10 or -1d8 hp? That way, you're out of the running for sure (apart from Diehard, which actually starts doing what it promises), but you can be saved by cure minor wounds.

(note that this wouldn't work for petrification or disintegration)

[Amphetryon]

Pounce has much more counterplay, even surprise pounce. In addition to the standbys of boosting your flat-footed AC and miss chance, there's also terrain, marching order, reach weapons, pumping initiative, contingencies etc. And there's also the simple fact that melee attack rolls are the game's most common threat, so they're much more likely to be something the player is anticipating than, say, a touch attack + death effect.1. FTFY.

2. Pounce has killed no less than 7 Characters I have seen, or run, in the past 4 years. SoD Spells - as we normally consider the term - have killed fewer. Tell me again about how the latter is better than the former, or about the defenses that, for example, a 3rd level Character has against a Leopard besides Perception.

3. Given your general preference for PF - judging by your posts - which SoD Spells are you comparing against Pounce's ability to take one or more Characters out before they get an action in combat? My understanding is that PF has generally done away with SoD Spells.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I've been trying to avoid doing this but I can't help it anymore. Nothing against you personally, Psyren, yours is just the post I'm respondng to in lieu of quoting everyone with these sorts of arguments.


Pounce has much more counterplay, even surprise pounce.

Not really. The only difference is how many times the die rolls.


In addition to the standbys of boosting your AC

Which is near constantly denigrated as a waste of resources around these parts.


and miss chance,

So a percentile die instead of a d20. Not impressed by the difference here.


there's also terrain, marching order,

You don't get to pick the terrain in a suprise attack and ambushers typically choose terrain that favors them rather than impedes. Marching order just decides who gets to be the one to roll his chances vs being smeared accross the landscape.


reach weapons,

Irrelevant without combat reflexes.


pumping initiative,

Doesn't even get rolled in a surprise round.


contingencies etc.

This is different from getting deathward, how?


And there's also the simple fact that melee attack rolls are the game's most common threat, so they're much more likely to be something the player is anticipating than, say, a touch attack + death effect.

This is the -one- legitimate thing here.

At the same time, you -rarely- have to prepare for a SoD that is not part of a larger category that you otherwise -should- be prepared for as your reach the appropriate levels. You don't prepare for finger of death, you prepare for death effects. You don't prepare for a medusa's glare, you prepare against petrification. You don't prepare against a pouncing barbarian, you prepare for being ambushed. The exact preparations used for each of these things differ but failing to make those preparations yields the same result; you roll a couple dice and, if you fail, you're down and out. Parsing the whole thing down to a single die roll can make things feel anticlimactic if it's used poorly in a narrative sense; it comes completely out of nowhere, for no reason, and the whole of the description is "roll fort. *pause for roll* You're dead;" but it can make for a tense, thrilling moment if it's handled well, regardless of success or failure.

It's the whole reason we use dice at all in microcosm; the chance of failure makes the victory sweeter. It's a gambler's high. The more there is riding on any given roll the more tense the roll is and the more of a rush you get when you hit it big. It's also more grating when you lose, of course, but if you weren't in it for the gamble, why use dice at all?

[Psyren]

1. FTFY.

2. Pounce has killed no less than 7 Characters I have seen, or run, in the past 4 years. SoD Spells - as we normally consider the term - have killed fewer. Tell me again about how the latter is better than the former, or about the defenses that, for example, a 3rd level Character has against a Leopard besides Perception.

3. Given your general preference for PF - judging by your posts - which SoD Spells are you comparing against Pounce's ability to take one or more Characters out before they get an action in combat? My understanding is that PF has generally done away with SoD Spells.

1) Not really fixed. For the characters that are most in danger of being surprised (e.g. poor stealth and observation, and no Uncanny Dodge), Dex and Dodge bonuses make up a small proportion of their overall AC. The flat-footed AC of a fighter in full plate hefting a tower shield is not materially worse than his normal AC.

2) The plural of anecdote is not data.

3) I'm glad you brought this up because it illustrates the oddity of your position perfectly. PF did away with SoDs, but not with pouncing monsters. Clearly they felt (correctly) that pouncing monsters are less of a threat to fun than SoD spells are. And the reason they thought so lines up quite well with my own position - that pounce has far more counterplay.

@Kelb: I'll answer you at length later (oh no, I have to take Combat Reflexes with my reach weapon, what an unlikely combination :smalltongue: )

[Coidzor]

Don't like them in combats, but some of them have utility uses.


Why is a Pounce monster exempt from the anti-fun objection? Given how often I see a single Surprise Round from a Pounce monster (coupled with high Initiative for the following Round) function just like a SoD with a Spot/Perception check subbing for the Save, I do not grok the distinction you're drawing that makes one anti-fun and not the other.

If you die in 1 turn from a pouncer, that just means the damage:max HP ratio was off, meaning either the GM messed up, the Player messed up, or the monster designer messed up.

[Cosi]

I would conjecture that regardless of power gap, Pounce probably feels worse than SoDs do, just because you don't get to roll any dice before dying. I also don't see the defenses as being that different. Pumping your AC is not particularly unlike pumping your saves, miss chances don't feel particularly different from SR, and you can at least try to be flat immune to finger of death.

IMHO, Save-or-Die spells are on balance good. They could certainly be improved (maybe SoDs just inflict a debuff unless the target is bloodied?), but I would much rather have fights end quickly than drag on.

[Darth Ultron]

That seems to imply your only way to threaten characters is with random SoD spells and if that the case it seems more like a personal issue, rather than necessitating SoDs as a cornerstone of good D&D.

It would be more accurate to say character death should be one of the big threats in D&D.

The mere fact that people really go far to make sure character death has no place in their games, simply shows how important it is...




Just out of curiosity, when did I ever say I did or included things like that, barring the last thing? And I actually don't even go that far; I just don't have NPCs use them against the PCs. They still exist and PCs are completely free to load up on nothing BUT save-or-die/suck/lose spells if they want. But, as a player, I don't enjoy having them thrown at me, so I don't throw them at my players.

Well, your opposed to a single spell killing a Pc and them ''not doing anything the rest of the night''.

So that would apply to all character death right? You would not want a single orc with a single weapon killing a PC, right?




Not sure what you're saying here, honestly, can you elaborate or rephrase?

If you don't let one roll, from say a trap or a weapon attack, kill a character...then that should include spells too.

Classic(by-the-book) D&D-anything can kill a character at any time

New Wave D&D- Everything just does ''damage'' and as the Pc's in particular are way overloaded with hit points and healing, there is just an endless ''loss'' and ''gain'' of HP, with no death.

[Flickerdart]

From a meta-game perspective, Save or Die spells (and their friends, Save or Lose spells like feeblemind) are atrocious game design. It might be fine for kids with no jobs or other things to do, but for an adult it is an increasingly bigger deal to devote an entire evening every week to gaming. Maybe you had to pay a babysitter to take care of the kids. Maybe you're going to be a zombie at work tomorrow because you were up late pretending to be an elf. Maybe you had to travel far, and pay for gas or the bus, or whatever.

And then the game goes, "oh, did you want to play? I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of your guy being turned into a drooling vegetable after a single die roll."

From the PC side it's still a garbage game element (hello DM's encounter, goodbye DM's encounter) but at least nobody is screwed out of precious gaming hours because of it.

[Cosi]

It would be more accurate to say character death should be one of the big threats in D&D.

It should be possible for the PCs to fail, but I don't think death (specifically, permanent death, as resurrection changes things) is necessarily good. If character creation is complex (and in D&D, it generally is), character death is generally going to result in either hurt feelings or identical replacements.


The mere fact that people really go far to make sure character death has no place in their games, simply shows how important it is...

This logic is super bad. People generally avoid things they don't like, not things that are important. Most people don't want graphic depictions of torture in their games. Does that make torture an important part of the game?

[Red Fel]

It would be more accurate to say character death should be one of the big threats in D&D.

Agreed.


The mere fact that people really go far to make sure character death has no place in their games, simply shows how important it is...

Not sure where you're getting this. I don't think anyone in this thread has said "characters should not die." My beef, personally, is that characters should not die as the result of a single, isolated roll.


Well, your opposed to a single spell killing a Pc and them ''not doing anything the rest of the night''.

So that would apply to all character death right? You would not want a single orc with a single weapon killing a PC, right?

I don't see why it would. This thread is about Save-or-Die spells, not about all character death. Please don't equate the two; one is a subspecies of the other. All zebras are equines, but that doesn't mean you'd see a Miniature Shetland Pony on the African savanna.


If you don't let one roll, from say a trap or a weapon attack, kill a character...then that should include spells too.

Again, false equivalency. The issue is with the fact that, in a vacuum, a single roll can instantly kill a character.

Now, at low levels, just about anything can do that. A level one Fighter in paper-thin armor who gets hit by a Kobold arrow has a chance of dying right there. But that's at least part of the suspension of disbelief - at that level, anything can kill you. The players accept that.

It's different when you're high enough level to take an axe to the face and keep walking. Again, not saying that the character shouldn't die. If he takes enough axes to the face, death should be inevitable. But it's the accumulated result of multiple rolls, not bad luck with just one.


Classic(by-the-book) D&D-anything can kill a character at any time

But this isn't the OD&D forum. This is the 3e/3.5e/d20 forum. (With some PF. Hey guys.) And in this edition, while yes, a character can get killed at any time, the presumption of, say, Tomb of Horrors (that everything is ultra-lethal and designed to kill the PCs) isn't as prevalent as it once was. It may be at your table, but many tables nowadays have a less antagonistic "DM vs. Players" attitude than they did in the days of Gygax.


New Wave D&D- Everything just does ''damage'' and as the Pc's in particular are way overloaded with hit points and healing, there is just an endless ''loss'' and ''gain'' of HP, with no death.

Straight-up false.

[Sayt]

True Save or Dies, rather than Save or Suck So Hard You Die-s? I'm... in at least two minds about them. Thematically, I really like them. The idea of the mage so powerful he kills with a finger is an old an and interesting piece of mythology and imagery. (Stross' Laundry Files helped this for me).

Gameplay/player-wise, "My dice haven't reverted to the mean after a low streak and I got death effected and can't be raised" is just a pain in the nether realms.

Game-design wise, it's a tool that obsoletes whole classes, and if I included them, I'd restrict access to highly specialised necromancers.

As a GM, I did enjoy the look on my players face when I tossed down a Circle of Death the level before they became immune. It only got an animal companion, because the Bard used Saving Finale, and another had Death Ward, and I probably wouldn't use it where the party didn't have some mitigation (Unless they were being dumb)



But this isn't the OD&D forum. This is the 3e/3.5e/d20 forum. (With some PF. Hey guys.) .
Hello, Heretic :smallwink:

In terms of Pathfinder, I actually really like how quite a few SoD's became extremely high-damage spells for a few reasons: A) It turns a binary "Die/Survive" into a Trinary Quarnary(?) "Die From Big Damage/Survive Big Damage/Die from lesser damage/Survive lesser damage". This means that a hypothetical martial ally's effort isn't wasted by then chipping away an enemies health and then having their HP value deleted, the spell slot contributes even on a passed save, and has some .

B) You aren't necessarily dead if you fail the save. If a mage tries to zap you and takes away 90% of your HP instead of getting to safety, you can give his kidneys a handshake with your sword in thanks (Yeah, yeah, arbitrary magical defenses, I know, but that's boring and narratively uninteresting, unless the entire narrative is about that)

[Quertus]

Generally, the character they want to play is the one they're actually playing. Not some random NPC or a B-character they haven't glanced at for several sessions.

Even in those instances where you warn them ahead of time how lethal the game is going to be - something it doesn't even sound like the pro-SoD people are doing, at least not in this thread - even if they agree to that going in, after a few sessions (role)playing that character they're likely to become attached/invested. And at that point, ripping the rug out from under them with an ignominious and undramatic end just feels crappy. Responding by dangling an NPC in front of them just to keep them at the table seems akin to those parents who try to buy a new puppy to replace the one they ran over in front of the child, and give it the same name thinking they won't notice.

One of my friends and I have very different play styles in terms of lethality rating, so this is something of a hot topic for me.

One table I played at was... if not always high lethality, at least usually very high unconscious / petrified / polymorphed / otherwise down for the count. At that table (and at several others I've played with), we were allowed to run up to 3 characters simultaneously. So, for example, while Quertus was unconscious, I was still running Victoria Swiftblade and Khan Ravensblood. That game style is not for everybody, but I personally really enjoy it.

Some players I know really enjoy getting to run different builds while their characters are unconscious. So, for them, getting to run an NPC - or even someone who isn't there's PC - is an opportunity that they would jump at. This game style is not for everybody, but some people really enjoy it.

Some people don't want to run someone else - they want to run their character. They don't want their character to die. For them, death is a revolving door. Having quick, abundant resurrection keeps them in the game. This game style is not for everybody, but some people really enjoy it.

Some people come to the game with a whole folder full of backup characters. They probably want their replacement characters to be introduced quickly - perhaps even quickly enough that the party could take cover behind the wall of their dead bodies. This game style is not for everybody, but it is an option.

Point is, unless you're playing with kiddie gloves, figure out ahead of time how death - whatever the source - and incapacitation - whatever the source - isn't going to ruin someone's day.


As someone who hates /day abilities because of the extra bookkeeping they entail, I find the idea that you deserve to die simply because you don't want to run a specific build that involves keeping track of more f****** resources to be.....irritating.

Not to mentions, this plays into the part where SoD unfairly effects martials and skillmonkeys, since they tend to have less access to such things.

Hahaha. :) As someone who hates X/day abilities, too, I appreciate that. That's why you let the people who are willing to play with x/day abilities play the vancian casters.

But the point isn't just if you don't personally have an ability, you fail; rather, that the party can and probably should have some ability to mitigate the concept of their fate being determined by a single roll.

Actually, skill monkies can have nice things: they can use 2 of the 3 abilities I listed, in that they can use the wand of Resurgence and the dorje of Fate of One. And anyone can wear a ring of 9 lives. And martials already get the nice, infinite times per day abilities. :smallwink:

[Spore]

I think that the bottom line is the difference between lethality and instant lethality.




Thank you for putting my main points into words. I'm not as eloquent in my native language and my writing gets even more wooden in English.




In terms of Pathfinder, I actually really like how quite a few SoD's became extremely high-damage spells for a few reasons: A) It turns a binary "Die/Survive" into a [s]Trinary Quarnary(?) "Die From Big Damage/Survive Big Damage/Die from lesser damage/Survive lesser damage". This means that a hypothetical martial ally's effort isn't wasted by then chipping away an enemies health and then having their HP value deleted, the spell slot contributes even on a passed save, and has some .

B) You aren't necessarily dead if you fail the save.

Let's do adventures in numbers. Just imagine the terrible 90s TV series jingle now, okay?

An 11th level Wizard's Disintegrate does 22d6 damage. Let's imagine Lady Luck is indifferent about the player and apply 77 damage. My standard d8 class on 10th level (because an 11th level wizard is CR 10) has Con 14 and average'd HD: 70 HP.

If you are lucky and at full HP you might survive. If you are below full HP (as most heroes after or during a strenous dungeon are) your chances decrease immensely. And dividing up your chances to survive something to two rolls (with more than two dice) isn't really what I had in mind when I was expecting a gradual increase in tension.

The chances to survive the full damage are slim enough for me to categorize Disintegrate into SoD. That and my experience of loosing two characters to that.

[Telonius]

I totally agree that having a player be dead for the entire rest of the evening is pretty lame... but that's why I don't use Save or Die spells until the players can overcome death at the end of an encounter (either through scrolls or resurrection spells). Hit point death happens, both at low levels and high; but I think that's seen as more of a "legitimate" death and not a targeted screw-over.

[Shackel]

Save or Die and Save or Suck run into a problem with me where, on paper, looking at D&D entirely from just the same perspective that you would look at a video game, they are "balanced". (Un)fortunately, there are players involved, so in practice, even if there is a quick means of resurrection or status removal outside of combat, you're still having a player sit there for the rest of the evening doing nothing.

Not to mention that the more narrative your game becomes, the more annoying having your character you've been with from 1-10th level whose stories are yet to be told get one-shotted by a single natural 1 at a level where rocket tag isn't the norm again becomes.

[Flickerdart]

I totally agree that having a player be dead for the entire rest of the evening is pretty lame... but that's why I don't use Save or Die spells until the players can overcome death at the end of an encounter (either through scrolls or resurrection spells). Hit point death happens, both at low levels and high; but I think that's seen as more of a "legitimate" death and not a targeted screw-over.
The "end of the encounter" is ever-further at high levels (the ones at which resurrection spells become common). A battle at first level might be over in half an hour, but in my experience at even the mid levels, you're lucky to squeeze in two combats per session because of the complexity of each turn.

[BWR]

Thank you for putting my main points into words. I'm not as eloquent in my native language and my writing gets even more wooden in English.



Let's do adventures in numbers. Just imagine the terrible 90s TV series jingle now, okay?

An 11th level Wizard's Disintegrate does 22d6 damage. Let's imagine Lady Luck is indifferent about the player and apply 77 damage. My standard d8 class on 10th level (because an 11th level wizard is CR 10) has Con 14 and average'd HD: 70 HP.

If you are lucky and at full HP you might survive. If you are below full HP (as most heroes after or during a strenous dungeon are) your chances decrease immensely. And dividing up your chances to survive something to two rolls (with more than two dice) isn't really what I had in mind when I was expecting a gradual increase in tension.

The chances to survive the full damage are slim enough for me to categorize Disintegrate into SoD. That and my experience of loosing two characters to that.


I haven't seen anyone fail a ST vs Disintegrate since 2e, so using that sort of logic it went from SoD to bloody useless.

[Sayt]

Let's do adventures in numbers. Just imagine the terrible 90s TV series jingle now, okay?

An 11th level Wizard's Disintegrate does 22d6 damage. Let's imagine Lady Luck is indifferent about the player and apply 77 damage. My standard d8 class on 10th level (because an 11th level wizard is CR 10) has Con 14 and average'd HD: 70 HP.

If you are lucky and at full HP you might survive. If you are below full HP (as most heroes after or during a strenous dungeon are) your chances decrease immensely. And dividing up your chances to survive something to two rolls (with more than two dice) isn't really what I had in mind when I was expecting a gradual increase in tension.

The chances to survive the full damage are slim enough for me to categorize Disintegrate into SoD. That and my experience of loosing two characters to that.


I haven't seen anyone fail a ST vs Disintegrate since 2e, so using that sort of logic it went from SoD to bloody useless.

I was thinking more in terms of deep slumber or color spray than disintegrate when I mentioned "save or sick so hard you die", because those are more narratively diverse than death effects. They can be used to abduct, disable or humiliate, not just kill.

But yeah, the d8 classes aren't really what I was talking about so much as the d10 and d12 classes. (Especially if they have some time to devote to training hp, and a high con)

But I would certainly classify disintegrate as a SoD.

[NichG]

Disintegrate is definitely not a save or die, or you should consider any attack that could kill a character a save or die which really makes this more about character death in general.

Disintegrate requires an attack roll, grants a save, and the damage can be tanked even if you fail the first two. You can be killed by disintegrate, but you can just as well be killed by a level 11 rogue full attacking with two weapon fighting while flanking. In fact, the rogue's damage potential is higher than disintegrate in that case (24d6, plus extras from weapon and stats and such), and offers less mitigation opportunity.

[gadren]

I've never liked SoDs much. In my decades of DMing, I've killed I think one player with an SoD, and he intentionally went and picked a fight with a Death Slaad. Thing is though, even without SoD's, I've still had plenty of sudden deaths of players. The rogue that got crit by the scythe trap for x3 damage that I rolled max on, a couple times of just rolling unusually well on a big monster's full-attack, etc.
It happens.

[Sayt]

@NichG: I don't really think that's an apt comparison: disintegrate deals it's payload on one ranged touch attack with a range of 210 feet. It averages seven points of untyped damage per CL, which, on average will zero a character with d8, 16 con, abd equal to caster level. As a spell slot. If he wants to be rude and probanly a little wasteful, he can quicken true strike to guarantee a hit and ignore miss chance.

An 11th level rogue is dividing their payload into four packages, each with their own attack roll at flatfoot ac. Two of these attacks are 25% less accurate. The damage is precision, which a number of creatures are immune too (moreso in 3.5, anyway). You also need to get sneak attacks, which isn't hugely onerous, but it's more of a consideration than "do I want to spend a slot here?"

[Spore]

But yeah, the d8 classes aren't really what I was talking about so much as the d10 and d12 classes. (Especially if they have some time to devote to training hp, and a high con)

But I would certainly classify disintegrate as a SoD.

d10+ doesn't make the bulk of the classes sadly. Additionally I would never target the d10 classes with a Disintegrate. It has range and is well suited to kill the big bad caster in the backline.


@NichG: I don't really think that's an apt comparison: disintegrate deals it's payload on one ranged touch attack with a range of 210 feet. It averages seven points of untyped damage per CL, which, on average will zero a character with d8, 16 con, abd equal to caster level. As a spell slot. If he wants to be rude and probanly a little wasteful, he can quicken true strike to guarantee a hit and ignore miss chance.

An 11th level rogue is dividing their payload into four packages, each with their own attack roll at flatfoot ac. Two of these attacks are 25% less accurate. The damage is precision, which a number of creatures are immune too (moreso in 3.5, anyway). You also need to get sneak attacks, which isn't hugely onerous, but it's more of a consideration than "do I want to spend a slot here?"

I think everyone agrees that a caster can outplay a rogue on every level but that is not the point. I think we should compare spells.

[Melcar]

I think they should be there, in any high fantasy setting. Now since most (i think all but implossion) has a discripter, its not that hard to become immune. At least for at short duration like a battle. Now do I like them. Well yes and no. From a mechanical point I thinks its less fun to use them. However, I see their value and would miss them if they were not there. My DMs usually, for them most part mirror part of the players tactics, meaning that if I start using disjunction as my every battle go to oppener, my enemeis seem to adobt that kind of behavior as well. I recall him saying that stuff like that happens with fame/infamy and so just as I know stuff ingame about Larloch or some other baddy they too know about me. Therefore save vs. death is usually my last option used. Or in the case that it is absolutely imperative that we survive or that I'm bored of the encounter and want to show off.

So yes I believe they belong, but are not the funnest of options

[Fizban]

Disintegrate is definitely not a save or die, or you should consider any attack that could kill a character a save or die which really makes this more about character death in general.
As above, it's sudden and uncontested character death that is the problem. Which includes pouncing uberchargers and metamagic abuse as well as SoD.

The (possibly?) unspoken implication of people not liking characters or foes dying in a single round, is that people want combat to last several rounds. For all that char-op tells you any build that can't one round every monster up to +2 CR past it's level is worthless, that's not a fun combat. Once death is down to a single roll or flat guaranteed, all that math on the character sheet is worthless and the game is just a glorified freeform chess match. If you want to play the game and fight some monsters you want combat to last a few rounds, which means not ubercharing things to death in one round, not twin-max-lolorbing, and not dropping souped up SoDs on everything. Not that anyone's been pushing that here, but hey.

And on the DM's side that means (as someone said above) making sure that your monsters/NPCs can't one round any of the PCs from full except on special occasions where it's appropriate (so you know, boss fights), weather it's spell choices or melee tuning or whatever.

[NichG]

As above, it's sudden and uncontested character death that is the problem. Which includes pouncing uberchargers and metamagic abuse as well as SoD.

I guess my point is that it is in fact quite contested and contestable. When your character dies, it will always happen within one round - he will be alive at one point of the round and dead at the next point. The distinction between a 'save or die' and 'any character death' is the difference between a case in which there was a sequence of events that led up to that final blow, versus a case in which the final blow was unrelated to anything which came before.

Disintegrate is an effect that could potentially kill your character, but there are many such effects. In fact, to a great degree, only such effects are actually at all relevant in combat (other things can still be relevant outside of combat due to attrition and resource consumption). It is also a spell that grants a save. But it is not a save-or-die because it grants so many possible ways to mitigate its effects that characters can take reasonable action to guard against it ahead of time even without being specialized magical MacGyvers. Almost every character archetype has something they can do to be protected from Disintegrate, which is an integral part of their archetype rather than a one-off option.

First of all, the spell offers a save. On its own, that would not prevent it from being a save-or-die. But on top of that, the caster must hit their target. That means that in addition to the save, you can use cover, concealment, displacement, touch AC, things that protect against ranged attacks in general, etc to get an extra layer of defense on top of what you had before. If you know there is a caster out there with Disintegrate, you can drop a smokescreen or stay in total cover or do that kind of thing to help protect yourself - counters available to almost any character. In addition, there is the most general counter that all characters possess - hitpoints. If you have a d8 HD, a meh Con (12), and a +Con magic item (+4 at Lv11 is reasonable), then on average you can tank a failed save vs Disintegrate from full health. Its true that some characters may already be wounded, may have dumped Con or decided not to go for the magic item, etc, but those are all examples of prior actions having a future consequence - e.g. a sequence of events leading to that final blow being a lethal one. All of those things are preventable, even if they have a cost to prevent that not all characters will pay.

In that regards, Disintegrate is more or less doing what most character options should do - its creating a threat that will kill you unless you react to its presence, but at the same time its a threat which you can react to and thereby counter. Of course Disintegrate can be optimized to push it out of the readily counterable zone, but so can Magic Missile or Hail of Stones or almost anything else for that matter. And if the op level of the game is even a bit above Sword-and-Board/Healbot Cleric/Fireball wizard, then Disintegrate quickly becomes completely nonthreatening.