Is this a horrible game-breaking houserule?

[BRC]

There is a Houserule I like to use, put simply, certain "Boss" enemies (Clearly identified as such if the rule would apply, and it's usually fairly obvious anyway), will automatically succeed on any Saving throws for Save or Die and Save or Lose spells until they have fairly low HP. My reasoning for this is that it's not much fun for everybody to prep for a big epic fight , only for it to be over in one round because the baddie rolled a 1 on their will save. If the MBEG is at low health anyway though, I go with the roll. The point is that, if the players want to fight the encounter, they should actually fight it. Of course, the spells work just fine on mooks and the like.

At the same time, I try to avoid Save-or Die/lose spells against my PC's, for the very same reason. Oh sure, the smartest thing would be for the bad guy to just use a Save-or-Die on the PC, but that's not very much fun. It's also helped that none of my PC's play Batman-esque characters in the first place, so it rarely comes up. But my question is, what do you think about this idea? Obviously, it won't work for many groups, but does it add or detract from the game?

[Grail]

I assume the players know about this. If they do, then fine. What you could do though, is have Save or Die spells simply deal damage instead, like what happened with Disintergrate.

[Saint Nil]

I think its a good rule. Villlains are supposed top be powerful, epic, and memerable. You might allow it as a way to finish them off, but I see nothing wrong with it as it just makes the fight tougher without breaking it.

[Hat-Trick]

To be honest, I'D use it for the exact same reasons you do. Whether it's balanced or not, that's another story.

[Thorin]

It depends... U could surely warn them somehow and make them be ready for a Save-or-die spell (buy itmes, be buffed, etc.)

It can be game-breaking if they just kill the MBEG.... but sure: it could be just a decay, an illusion; or just be buffed or have an item to prevent such scenario

Nevertheless, U SHOULD let them kill in one-shot a boss SOMETIME. It fills the players with pride when they see the big-threatening enemy die in one action

[wadledo]

If you want it to be "fair", just make a template that lets them reroll X/day saves that would other wise bring the character down to -10 or death.
Otherwise, that's completely fine, and probably something all DM's should consider using.

[BRC]

I assume the players know about this. If they do, then fine. What you could do though, is have Save or Die spells simply deal damage instead, like what happened with Disintergrate.

They do, and if they try to use a Save-or-Die/Lose spell on a "boss" monster that hasn't reached the HP threshold, I tell them that the enemy will make it's saving throw, so it's not like I'm tricking them into wasting spells/turns casting spells I know will fail. The way I see it, it's less about making the fight tougher, and more about ensuring that the fight Happens. That's why I let the spells work for finishing enemies off, because the fight has occurred, everybody has contributed.

[Inyssius Tor]

I'd prefer that a spell do something interesting if the guy failed his save. Turn him partially to stone. Banish him partially to the Positive Energy Plane. Leave him with a pissed-off Phantasmal Killer clinging to his neck for the next couple of rounds. Partially disjunct his enchanted sword, rendering the sword useless at cutting anything but leaving the unraveling enchantment to lash out across the room with now-uncontained destructive energy. That sort of thing.

But this would work. I just think that giving the players some incentive to try it would be cool.

[BRC]

I'd prefer that a spell do something interesting if the guy failed his save. Turn him partially to stone. Banish him partially to the Positive Energy Plane. Leave him with a pissed-off Phantasmal Killer clinging to his neck for the next couple of rounds. Partially disjunct his enchanted sword, rendering the sword useless at cutting anything but leaving the unraveling enchantment to lash out across the room with now-uncontained destructive energy. That sort of thing.

But this would work. I just think that giving the players some incentive to try it would be cool.

Yes, but then you need to houserule a Partial effect for every save or Die/Lose effect in the game. What happens when one is "Partially" turned to stone.

[Inyssius Tor]

Oh no. Way too much trouble. Situational, too; what works for one guy wouldn't make much cinematic sense for another. Ad-hoc it.

Dunno if your players would be cool with that, but I would be.

EDIT: Doesn't have to be a partial effect, either. Maybe instead of being partially petrified, he catches it and discharges the energy in a thirty-foot burst--negating that pool of lava which he's immune to (although it'll melt eventually), or petrifying his minions (and hindering your front-line guy), or turning his sleek mythril armor to hindering stone (too bad he's almost as effective without it).

[AmberVael]

This is a rule I can get behind. Really, epic fights that end in one round because someone rolled low are kinda boring, you know?

[Morandir Nailo]

I'm weird, but I don't have a problem with save-or-dies, on either side. If the PCs take out my "big-scary-uber-bad-ZOMG-isn't-he-awesome" monster in one round, so be it. Likewise, if they encounter a Beholder and decide to fight it, they're in danger of being disintegrated or turned to stone, and they know it. If they don't want the risk they can always run away.

However, I know the kids don't take to this kind of play anymore (too many of them vidja games with their saves and multiple lives, says I). A rule that seems interesting to me is to have a SoD spell take you to -(spell level) HP instead of automatic death. The spell still incapacitates you, but you have a chance of survival. It's a decent compromise. Doesn't help the BBEG much, but things like Death Ward and Contingency spells are useful there.

Mor

[RTGoodman]

I like the intent, but I don't like the "automatic saves" aspect of it. How about instead, BBEGs and other boss-type monsters gain scaling bonuses on saving throws versus the kinds of things you're talking about. Something like:

{table=head]Hit Points Remaining | Bonus to Saves
75-100% | +8
50-74% | +4
25-49% | +2
24% or less | +0[/table]

That still gives PCs a CHANCE, at least, to try to silence the bad guy quickly with one risky spell. There's a certain risk factor involved ("Do I use my last phantasmal killer now, or try to beat him up a little more to make it more certain?"), but it still gives PCs a tiny chance to barge into a room and zap the bad guy as he's giving his big monologue if that's the kind of thing they're into.

If those bonuses don't seem high enough for your particularly party (they have beefed up save DCs, etc.), you can increase them to +20/+10/+5 or anywhere in between.

[AmberVael]

However, I know the kids don't take to this kind of play anymore (too many of them vidja games with their saves and multiple lives, says I).

That's a rather bad generalization. While it may be amusing or entertaining to see Jones whip out his gun on the sword wielding badass and cap him instantly, one shot encounters lack of a lot of tension and drama that fights could otherwise have.

Now, it's possible for fights to be short and exciting/dramatic/entertaining, but often a single "he fails his save" kinda takes the excitement out of it. Metaphorically, save or die spells are buttons that have chances of either saying "you win" or "try again." It's like using cheat codes, or flipping a coin- it's difficult to make it interesting.

It's not necessarily a lack of lethality that is desired- it's more of a desire for tension, for drama and story telling. I'll take Westley's duel with Inigo Montoya over a one-shot-solved encounter any day.

[zakk2to2]

as far as i am can tell this would make many of my video games funner. woo i killled bbeg! okay now what? <- just what normaly happens for me. honestly if a mage goes and disintigrates every boss they come to the others end up just twidling their collective thumbs and thats just not fair.

[shadowfox]

Honestly, I'd have to agree (to an extent), but I'd never make it a house rule. I always use a DM screen (or otherwise hide my rolls, books, etc.), and I have issues with mental math, so it usually takes me a bit to add up rolls (though I usually get the answer right before I hit the "equals" button on my calculator. In essence, as a DM, and for the sake of epicness, I'd cheat. If HP was pretty low, where combat wouldn't last more than another round or two at the current rate, then, yes, I'd stop messing with results.

... But, if I will lie the results for rolls on said Saving Throws, how much different is it than telling your PCs that the BBEG will always pass a Saving Throw for Save-or-Die and Save-or-Lose spells (speaking of which, would a hypothetical Death Attack also count under the "always passes Save-or-Die" effect thing? Sorry if I'm being a bit technical/literal) until a certain point. I wouldn't be public with it, either. I'd give clues, maybe. "He easily shrugs it off," at the first try, and when he gets lower, say something like "He looks tired, both physically and mentally." Something to clue them in on it.

In short, I wouldn't make it public. It's sort of like saying to the PCs "Alright, I'm going to railroad you guys for a while," or "Now we're going to do this entire battle as a cutscene, in which you PCs have no say in any matter." (Honestly, the latter example, although exaggerated, has happened to me before... Curse that DM!)

There are other things you could do, though. As Inyssius Tor said, have it work partially if it fails. It might not be the intended result, but at least it's something. Alternatively, maybe just give the boss a bonus to saving throws against those effects.

[BRC]

Honestly, I'd have to agree (to an extent), but I'd never make it a house rule. I always use a DM screen (or otherwise hide my rolls, books, etc.), and I have issues with mental math, so it usually takes me a bit to add up rolls (though I usually get the answer right before I hit the "equals" button on my calculator. In essence, as a DM, and for the sake of epicness, I'd cheat. If HP was pretty low, where combat wouldn't last more than another round or two at the current rate, then, yes, I'd stop messing with results.

... But, if I will lie the results for rolls on said Saving Throws, how much different is it than telling your PCs that the BBEG will always pass a Saving Throw for Save-or-Die and Save-or-Lose spells (speaking of which, would a hypothetical Death Attack also count under the "always passes Save-or-Die" effect thing? Sorry if I'm being a bit technical/literal) until a certain point. I wouldn't be public with it, either. I'd give clues, maybe. "He easily shrugs it off," at the first try, and when he gets lower, say something like "He looks tired, both physically and mentally." Something to clue them in on it.

In short, I wouldn't make it public. It's sort of like saying to the PCs "Alright, I'm going to railroad you guys for a while," or "Now we're going to do this entire battle as a cutscene, in which you PCs have no say in any matter." (Honestly, the latter example, although exaggerated, has happened to me before... Curse that DM!)

There are other things you could do, though. As Inyssius Tor said, have it work partially if it fails. It might not be the intended result, but at least it's something. Alternatively, maybe just give the boss a bonus to saving throws against those effects.

Now here is where me and you Disagree. The point of telling the players that this particular enemy will auto-succeed against Save-or-dies is so they don't waste turns futilely throwing those spells against the enemy. Imagine playing a wizard, and after wasting 4 spells and against an MBEG, only to learn later that the DM was using this rule so the MBEG would auto-succeed against those spells, I would be a little angry. And using this rule is very, very different from "Railroading" or running a battle as a cutscene. I'm still leaving the PC's options open, there are any number of things they could do to win the battle. The wizard could try to use some illusions/conjurations to control the battlefield, they could summon up some monsters for help, they could just sit back and start blasting, whatever. I'm not telling them how to do the fight, only banning one specific method because it isn't very much fun.

Railroading isn't saying "There is a wall there", Railroading is when you say "There is a wall everywhere BUT there"

[Raum]

But my question is, what do you think about this idea? Obviously, it won't work for many groups, but does it add or detract from the game?

It certainly detracts from the game. Essentially you're negating select PC abilities. The trade off is you get to tell your story. As long as the players buy into that, weighting story over game isn't a bad thing. Just be honest about it.

As for what I personally think about it, I prefer to have the game drive the story. But it's not my opinion which should matter to you - talk to your players.

[Eldariel]

I feel just giving them action points is enough; they still can fail if they get really unlucky, but it's not likely to happen until they've expended their reserves. Like, what is the point of casting Finger of Death if you know it will fail? I think it should be castable; the stories of epic fights are nothing compared to how long you'll talk about that Red Dragon that rolled a 1 on the save vs. FoD (this happened to our party 6 years ago; it's still one of our biggest stories).

[sonofzeal]

Excellent rule! Even better, tell your PCs that the same will apply to them! I find PCs tend to appreciate impartiality... and none like dying randomly. Losing the ability to kill important enemies randomly is a small price to pay.

[Agrippa]

I like the intent, but I don't like the "automatic saves" aspect of it. How about instead, BBEGs and other boss-type monsters gain scaling bonuses on saving throws versus the kinds of things you're talking about. Something like:

{table=head]Hit Points Remaining | Bonus to Saves
75-100% | +8
50-74% | +4
25-49% | +2
24% or less | +0[/table]

That still gives PCs a CHANCE, at least, to try to silence the bad guy quickly with one risky spell. There's a certain risk factor involved ("Do I use my last phantasmal killer now, or try to beat him up a little more to make it more certain?"), but it still gives PCs a tiny chance to barge into a room and zap the bad guy as he's giving his big monologue if that's the kind of thing they're into.

If those bonuses don't seem high enough for your particularly party (they have beefed up save DCs, etc.), you can increase them to +20/+10/+5 or anywhere in between.

Do you mind if I add this to my list of house rules?

[shadowfox]

I didn't mean to compare it to Railroading or the Cutscene-thing. My personal preference would be to, simply put, not know/tell. And the "Save or Die" thing did happen to one of my earliest campaigns before, before combat even started. A 10th level rogue/assassin (I can't remember the exact level distribution for the life of me) used a Death Attack/Coup de Grace on the BBEG, Zack of the Taverns (Monk 20/Drunken Master 10... I had been DMing for a year by the point this battle came up, so don't ask me what I set my PC's up against something epic level). Well, he survived the Death Attack, and then the worst thing possible happened... I rolled a 1 on his Fortitude Save. Now, the result equaled the Fortitude DC he needed to pass, but me and the PC got into a 10 minute long argument over whether the guy should live or not. Finally, angry and annoyed that a year's worth of planning had been ruined, I let the PCs have their way.

And then a epic battle of fighting their way out of a massive subterranean brewery (don't ask), which was set on fire in the second round of combat, which was actually really fun.

Personally, I'd rather see other solutions to the BBEG dying an anti-climactic death... Like an epic race to travel up 6 stories from the bottom of the brewery as it's being set on fire/burning down (I love alchemist's arrows).

But to each their own.

Honestly, as a PC, I'd rather not know that sort of rule, and if I were to implement such a rule as a DM, I wouldn't say a thing (I suffer from being the "friendly DM," so they usually don't have much of a challenge, and I tend to be too open at certain times). But that's just what I would do if I did it. Just my opinion. You do make a very good argument, though.

[KKL]

However, I know the kids don't take to this kind of play anymore (too many of them vidja games with their saves and multiple lives, says I). A rule that seems interesting to me is to have a SoD spell take you to -(spell level) HP instead of automatic death. The spell still incapacitates you, but you have a chance of survival. It's a decent compromise. Doesn't help the BBEG much, but things like Death Ward and Contingency spells are useful there.

Do you purposely try to act extremely condescending to people who don't share your views?

[RTGoodman]

Do you mind if I add this to my list of house rules?

Never!

Seriously though, have at it. I mean, I literally just made it up on the spot there so I have no idea if the numbers are good/balanced or anything, but feel free to use it.

[Gralamin]

Personally, I'd rather see other solutions to the BBEG dying an anti-climactic death... Like an epic race to travel up 6 stories from the bottom of the brewery as it's being set on fire/burning down (I love alchemist's arrows).

Your missing a possible solution though. Why not have the PCs and the BBBEG fighting against each other while running up those 6 stories? Wouldn't that be more epic then running up those stories after the BBEG just was one-shotted?

I've always played by letting my players know they couldn't kill important NPCs with instant kill spells - But at the same time, they were immune to it. Against some monsters the instant kill abilities remained, those that are supposed to be dangerous (Illithids and Beholders for example).

[zakk2to2]

i prefer a plot type dm interfence. yes killing the godlike dragon with a lucky FoD is sweet but leaves the other party members out in the cold. a boss should get an epic battle or else why in the world stat anything but the saves. the same goes for the heroes of course after all what fun i a 1 hit kill on you character so you have to sit out the rest of the game till they raise you? regular battles its alright but bosses deserve more then that and so do you.

[shadowfox]

Your missing a possible solution though. Why not have the PCs and the BBBEG fighting against each other while running up those 6 stories? Wouldn't that be more epic then running up those stories after the BBEG just was one-shotted?

Well, quite honestly, he's been the single PC in all of my campaigns that constantly knows what he's doing. At the time, I didn't know that yet... Plus, When I literally needed to roll anything but a 1, I thought it wasn't going to happen. Plus, the resulting battle of survival was fun for everyone.

Honestly, though, it was a good thing. They probably would have died because he was accidentally overpowered to a point of being broken. We were playing version 3, and I didn't have rules of epic levels, so I may or may not have invested time into finding out the patterns/equations of BAB, base save bonuses, and Flurry of Blows (both number of attacks as well as attack bonus)... And possibly damage also...

Though fighting the BBEG while trying to escape to survive... That's a good idea. *Scribbles down in DM Notebook of Doom*

[Jasdoif]

If your players know that boss-type enemies are immune to save-or-die/lose effects until they're at low HP, and they know when this rule comes into effect before they actually try to use such an effect; I don't see it as being game breaking. If nothing else, your players' preparation-casters, if any, will know ahead of time not to expect to end every single fight with save-or-die/lose spells; and can choose to prepare (more of) other spells that will work accordingly.


Now, if you're still interested in a compromise-type solution....Roll the saves against those effects normally, but the boss-type enemy actually passes on a preset number of failed rolls, and only if his/her/its health is not low. Once health is low, or once the "save buffer" is exhausted, it will suffer the normal results of failed saves.

So players have the option of throwing lots of save-or-X effects, which will/may eventually work, while at same time keeping the enemy's saves relevant.

For optimum effect, I recommend that the players not know when a save is made normally or when it counts against the limit, nor should they know what that limit is; and at the same time, the enemy itself should be completely unaware that it has this kind of protection, and its behavior should not be influenced by its presence or absence. This way, players will have no way of knowing beforehand if their spell will end the encounter.

[Keld Denar]

I actually like the idea of giving the baddy a huge bonus to his saves against things like FoD when he's at full health, but help from the other PCs to "chip" away at his hp that allow the mage to drive the proverbial Dagger of FoD into the heart of the baddy. Then everyone contributes. Most SoDs do minimal damage when they miss, so if the mage tries to go off too early, his spell still works to lower the baddies health, but doesn't outright slay him. Definitely record the values ahead of time though, so you don't have to math it out while the fur is flying.

I would address this with the players prior to playing, but I would NOT tell them when the baddy is at 75%, or 50% or whatever. I think that uncertainty requires more attention to be paid to damage done and whatnot. I know that would be fun for me to sit there and scheme and ponder when the best time exactly to FoD him.

Then again, I don't really like SoD casters. My favorite damage spells are Teleport, Benign Transposition, and Dimensional Hop. Enabling others to get more damage on their turns is just as good as doing some on yours, plus makes your minions party members feel important. Putting people in their proper place is like playing a fine game of chess. Sometimes you need to sacrifice pawns to take out kings. :P

[zakk2to2]

i personally think that players should actually have to work at defeating bosses instead of just trying to one hit them. i personally even though i generaly always play a caster never use those type of spells on a boss.