Saving Throws for Symbiotes

[druid zook]

I was running a high-powered gestalt campaign a few years ago. I let a player have an illithid symbiot that gave him uncanny dodge,+4 natural armor, and it had true seeing that allowed it to tell the wearer stuff. It got old. I decided to get rid of it. The player even had plans to make it his familiar! So he gets caught in the area of a necrotic skull bomb, and I told him to roll separate Fortitude Saves for his PC and its symbiot. Needless to say, it took too many negative levels and died. �� ��

The player rolled a natural 1 on his save, and all he needed was a 2 or higher. But he still says I assassinated his symbiot! What do you folks think? Was I unfair? And was there a better way?

[Inevitability]

Ah, the old 'I gave my player something strong and took it away'.

The player in question was obviously invested in the symbiont. Trying to kill it, even if the chances of it actually dying were small, was understandably unpleasant to the player, and the fact that you succeeded made it worse. To the player, that may very well feel as if you're randomly destroying parts of his character.

In your situation, I'd probably have sat down and had a good conversation about perhaps swapping out the symbiont for something else, or working its death in the plot somehow.


How were you ruling area attacks before? I faintly remember something about symbionts getting to avoid them...

[Geddy2112]

As far as symbosis, it depends on the relationship between the two. The two organisms are generally going to be of different biology, so they are not nessicarily vulnerable to the same things, and certain things might affect one more than the other. Depending on the source of the save, it may affect one, both, or one with a positive/negative modifier.

In the case that one is living on/in/as a part of the other, this can still be the case. Antibiotics are not going to kill a human's cells, but they will kill the bacteria in your digestive tract. A high dose of antibiotics can make a person sick, but they are far more dangerous to the bacteria, so at normal dose only the bacteria inside(lets say a disease for game mechanics) would make a save. The same human is expose to a fireball spell-the bacteria in their guts are safe from the fire(unless the human is immolated) and would be unable to dodge, and only the human makes a save. The bacteria are mindless, so a mind control can only affect a human and therefore only the human makes a save.

For reflex saves, I would only have the symbiotic capable of moving make a save-so a 2nd head, or coral growing on a hermit crab shell, etc won't make a save. For fortitude, if the organisms are biologically entwined(same heart lungs etc) then only one save, but if they are at least in part capable of living on their own and have distinct separate bodies then two saves as applicable. For will, if they are of the same mind it counts as one, while a separate mind would save separately or possibly be immune.


On to the problem-taking away a players options, particularly ones you have given, is generally poor form. Certainly the thing failed a save and died, which would be fine had you not expressly said you were trying to kill it. Had it passed, I suspect you would have tailored encounters to eventually kill the illithid.

Mistakes happen-sometimes you allow a choice or give an item/buff that turns out to be very game breaking, even if not intended. If this happens, the best way is to try and compensate encounters/treasure until things even out. If the thing is so game breaking that encounters are simply irrelevant or unable to be balanced, challenging, and meaningful then you need to talk to the player. Inform them that it is not punishment, but that thing X is causing the game to break. See if they are open to curtailing the power, using it less/in less destructive ways and maybe even giving it up. If they do give it up, compensate them fairly and allow them to retrain/rebuild any choices revolving around that, and if losing said option lowers them in power relative to other party members/encounters, buff them back up accordingly.

The key here is to communicate that it is not their fault(take all of the blame here if you allowed it, and more than all if you handed it over) but as is it is impossible to run a game with this in play. They might adamantly refuse, in which case you can force them out or take it by force, but another option is to let them totally run unopposed doing whatever they want and utterly break/destroy a game. A halfway decent player will realize this is horribly unfun, and the rest of the table(probably on board that their option is too powerful, particularly if their characters are irrelevant) will agree and when they want to actually play again, they will drop it. If they don't or solely want to munchkin and powergame to the level of destroying anything without challenge(and you/the group does not want to play like this) then inform them your group and table is not a good fit and they should find a game more fitting to their playstyle.

[Venger]

I was running a high-powered gestalt campaign a few years ago. I let a player have an illithid symbiot that gave him uncanny dodge,+4 natural armor, and it had true seeing that allowed it to tell the wearer stuff. It got old. I decided to get rid of it. The player even had plans to make it his familiar! So he gets caught in the area of a necrotic skull bomb, and I told him to roll separate Fortitude Saves for his PC and its symbiot. Needless to say, it took too many negative levels and died. �� ��

The player rolled a natural 1 on his save, and all he needed was a 2 or higher. But he still says I assassinated his symbiot! What do you folks think? Was I unfair? And was there a better way?
Sounds pretty non as far as goodies go for a high-powered gestalt game tbh.


Ah, the old 'I gave my player something strong and took it away'.

The player in question was obviously invested in the symbiont. Trying to kill it, even if the chances of it actually dying were small, was understandably unpleasant to the player, and the fact that you succeeded made it worse. To the player, that may very well feel as if you're randomly destroying parts of his character.

In your situation, I'd probably have sat down and had a good conversation about perhaps swapping out the symbiont for something else, or working its death in the plot somehow.

How were you ruling area attacks before? I faintly remember something about symbionts getting to avoid them...
As Inevitability says, this was clearly an OOC issue you tried to resolve via IC means, which is always a mistake. You'd have been better off saying you thought it was too powerful rather than try to kill the thing off.

You definitely assassinated the symbiote.

Rules regarding symbiotes and saves are on p215-216 of fiend folio. They use their master's saves if they're higher, for targeted effects must be targeted separately (provoking aoos from the master) and for aoes cannot be targeted, but are treated as worn equipment, only having a % chance to be destroyed if the master rolls a 1 on a save, a terrible rule which no one uses, and I gather your campaign didn't until you "remembered" it to kill off the symbiote.


As far as symbosis, it depends on the relationship between the two. The two organisms are generally going to be of different biology, so they are not nessicarily vulnerable to the same things, and certain things might affect one more than the other. Depending on the source of the save, it may affect one, both, or one with a positive/negative modifier.

In the case that one is living on/in/as a part of the other, this can still be the case. Antibiotics are not going to kill a human's cells, but they will kill the bacteria in your digestive tract. A high dose of antibiotics can make a person sick, but they are far more dangerous to the bacteria, so at normal dose only the bacteria inside(lets say a disease for game mechanics) would make a save. The same human is expose to a fireball spell-the bacteria in their guts are safe from the fire(unless the human is immolated) and would be unable to dodge, and only the human makes a save. The bacteria are mindless, so a mind control can only affect a human and therefore only the human makes a save.

For reflex saves, I would only have the symbiotic capable of moving make a save-so a 2nd head, or coral growing on a hermit crab shell, etc won't make a save. For fortitude, if the organisms are biologically entwined(same heart lungs etc) then only one save, but if they are at least in part capable of living on their own and have distinct separate bodies then two saves as applicable. For will, if they are of the same mind it counts as one, while a separate mind would save separately or possibly be immune.


On to the problem-taking away a players options, particularly ones you have given, is generally poor form. Certainly the thing failed a save and died, which would be fine had you not expressly said you were trying to kill it. Had it passed, I suspect you would have tailored encounters to eventually kill the illithid.

Mistakes happen-sometimes you allow a choice or give an item/buff that turns out to be very game breaking, even if not intended. If this happens, the best way is to try and compensate encounters/treasure until things even out. If the thing is so game breaking that encounters are simply irrelevant or unable to be balanced, challenging, and meaningful then you need to talk to the player. Inform them that it is not punishment, but that thing X is causing the game to break. See if they are open to curtailing the power, using it less/in less destructive ways and maybe even giving it up. If they do give it up, compensate them fairly and allow them to retrain/rebuild any choices revolving around that, and if losing said option lowers them in power relative to other party members/encounters, buff them back up accordingly.

The key here is to communicate that it is not their fault(take all of the blame here if you allowed it, and more than all if you handed it over) but as is it is impossible to run a game with this in play. They might adamantly refuse, in which case you can force them out or take it by force, but another option is to let them totally run unopposed doing whatever they want and utterly break/destroy a game. A halfway decent player will realize this is horribly unfun, and the rest of the table(probably on board that their option is too powerful, particularly if their characters are irrelevant) will agree and when they want to actually play again, they will drop it. If they don't or solely want to munchkin and powergame to the level of destroying anything without challenge(and you/the group does not want to play like this) then inform them your group and table is not a good fit and they should find a game more fitting to their playstyle.
Good rationale biologically, but symbiotes/symbionts are a defined in-game term with existing mechanics, so no houserules are necessary.

[druid zook]

I let him have the symbiont at 4th level because he was building up a half-dragon gestalt fighter/wizard, and in that campaign, I ruled that racial hit dice and LAs existed outside the gestalt class, but I allowed paying off LAs. Anyway, I was worried he wouldn't survive. The campaign was in Greyhawk. The PCs had by then joined The Artificers Guild of Irongate. I created an adventure path leading up to The Styes. Basically, the leader of the Assassins Guild in the Styes was a natural-born wererat gnome lich, with such slow moving long-range plans, that his lieutenants attacked the Artificers Guild in order to provoke a response ending in the destruction of the lich. It was highly political.

Anyways, the PCs returned to Irongate with a scepter containing two spells never heard of in Irongate. Scepters were never heard of either. The player was compensated for the loss of his symbiont in game.

I only made the exception to the rule because it was an AoE of negative energy calling for Fortitude Saves from ALL living creatures in the area.

The DMG does advise speaking with a player out of game, on matters of game balance. But I feel that it can be overused, which ruins the suspension of disbelief. I try to make everything happen in game. DM fiat should rarely be applied.

[ATHATH]

Hm... Take this with a grain of salt (since I don't DM much), but perhaps a better way to handle it would have been to make the Symbiont start getting more "pushy", and raising its ego score with time until the player WANTS to remove it.

[druid zook]

Hm... Take this with a grain of salt (since I don't DM much), but perhaps a better way to handle it would have been to make the Symbiont start getting more "pushy", and raising its ego score with time until the player WANTS to remove it.

That's an excellent suggestion!

That particular symbiont was a creature created by mind flayers to serve mind flayers. It had no name, only a number. I allowed the player to use Diplomacy checks over time to change the synbiont's alignment.

The PC never lost an ego check, due to being a high-power gestalt. Removal of the symbiont deals damage as it is like peeling off your skin.

I probably could have said it lost the true seeing power due to age. I was even thinking of having it die of old age. ��

[Inevitability]

I probably could have said it lost the true seeing power due to age. I was even thinking of having it die of old age. ��

That's no better than sniping it with a bomb, except now it'll feel even more unfair. That is, unless you heavily foreshadowed it in game or talked to the player out of game.