Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kipple Snacks 09-12-06, 02:20 AM	One of the major complaints of magic I hear is the uber power of save or die spells. Would it perhaps help with balance if I basically removed most of the save or die spells from the game? With the exception of a few(I think it was power word: Kill that only worked on things with less than 80, or 100 HP) or the ability from the Death Domain as it only works if you beat HP with leveld6 rolls. Does this sound like a good, simple step towards balancing magic? For my game, I lack access to Tome of Battle, though getting it is getting more and more tempting for me. Does it help power up warrior types a fair amount, if I were to get it simply for the feats and prcs?
True Cavalier 09-12-06, 04:03 AM	In my humble opinion, and from all the long time I have been playing D&D, magic is very balanced. Removing the save-or-die spells really will not do much more than upset any wizard players in your group...
Ltheb Liadon 09-12-06, 04:16 AM	From what I have seen, 1-shot kill spells are only scary in the hands of the DM against players below level 10. Most instant kill spells have saves, and if you make the save, either nothing happens, or you take a small amount of damage. The damage will almost never kill anything, except at the end of a fight. (One shot spells are best cast as the opening spell, or after dispels, to prevent a fight entirely) Additionally, with the changes to disintigrate in 3.5, every death spell has a counter or a way to defend against it, and such a defence is likely lower level than the spell it defends against. The only one that I can think of that doesn't is Phantasmal Killer, because it allows 2 different saves, and spell resistance. I don't remember off hand, but I think either True Seeing or Mindblank stop it. Now, players who (ab)use death spells try to get their saving throw DCs up really high so the offending monster/npc can't make the save. This generally works until the DM realizes by the time the Players get these spells, they are high enough level to encounter creatures these spells are useless against. (Undead, like liches/mummys. Or Golems) If Instant-Kill spells seem like a real game-breaker, try changing their effects to a Save or take *Insert Large ammount of damage here*. Most of the time, however, its not the Save-or-Die spells that are game disrupting, but the Save-or-wish-you-were-dead spells (Ex: Mass Hold Monster, Temporal Stasis), or the there-is-no-save-you-just-die spells (Ex: Scorching Ray with heavy metamagic, Timestop, Forcecage/Maze+Delay Blast Fireballs).
Rhialto 09-12-06, 04:25 AM	If a player instakills a monster with a spell, was the fight really a challenge at all? Should they be getting xp for that victory? If your answer is no (as mine is), the spell rapidly becomes self balancing.
Ltheb Liadon 09-12-06, 09:52 AM	If a player instakills a monster with a spell, was the fight really a challenge at all? Should they be getting xp for that victory? If your answer is no (as mine is), the spell rapidly becomes self balancing. I tend to agree, but since there was a chance that it didn't work, and that the player expended some resources (In this case, a potent spell) they should be awarded some ammount of exp. Granted, if the player uses this on the main villain, and that villain (or the DM) wasn't prepared for it, then they should recieve the full Exp. Once. If they get lucky and use a spell to slay a monster, well thats all well and good. Thats what spellcasters do. I think the main concern is when that becomes all the spellcaster does. If I play a mage, and all my 7th level spellslots are Finger of Death, and all my 8th level spells are Heightened Finger of Death, and my 9th level spells are Empowered Finger of Death, two problems arise: 1 - I am a one trick pony, and my foes are just going to send an Iron Golem or two to kill me. (Or just cast Death Ward and/or Spellturning :)) 2 - Since experience generally means what you learn from adventuring, by casting the same spell over and over, am I even learning anything? Perhaps adjusting the challenges the PCs face, sending clerical foes who cast Death Ward. Or using Undead, or Constructs who are usually immune to such magic. Instant kill spells are balanced in that preparation easily defeats them. If the DM is letting his NPCs die repeatedly the same way over and over, (And there isn't a logical reason why, like npcs with really low Intelligence) then he or she needs to re-evaluate his or her adventure formula, and put a few (dozen) "speedbumps" against such tactics. (And it is fun to suddenly turn the tables on over-confident players)
Thelon Fairblade 09-12-06, 02:54 PM	Instant-kill spells target different saves. Hold Person is a Will Save; Baleful polymorph is a Fort save. (I'm sure there are Ref instant-kills, too.) A wise caster knows (or prepares) a variety of these spells, as well as a boom/blast or two for the hordes of minions. At 10th level, does a 35pt lightning bolt really scare the CR 10 monster? Depends on the monster, but not much (hill giants, for example, have 120hp and are only CR 7). Direct damage spells begin to pale in comparison to a single spell that will eliminate the entire 200 hp monster. And while an experienced and prepared foe -- with access to strong equipment or the right spell at the right time -- can block the spell he is most likely to fail, but that doesn't ward against the other types. Protection from Good blocks Dominate Monster, but not Hold Monster (both will saves, killers against warrior types). Death Ward blocks Finger of Death, but not Baleful Polymorph (both Fort saves, killers against rogue or mage types). So instant kill spells are very effective, harder to ward against than you (Ltheb) seem to think, and not a one-trick-pony kind of thing. Harder to use but more effective than just "I blast it for damage. Again." And if the DM is tailoring the bad guys to have specific defenses against each insta-kill spell the party casters have, there had better be a very good reason for the knowledge that represents and the expenditure of resources. Instant-kill AGAINST players is far and away more effective. Players have limited known resources. The GM can pull a monster out of a book or a module that the player might be completely unprepared for. Roll save, fail, die, despite all the "common" defenses. Evil GMs can intentionally *pick*attacks that bypass all the PC's carefully planned (and purchased!) defenses. Now... answering the OP question. If you want to devalue instant kill spells, you have a number of options. I'll list the most common solutions I have seen suggested on these boards: a) Instant-kill spells are -3 DC, i.e. easier to resist than normal. b) Instant-kill spells are resisted with the target's best save. c) Instant-kill spells reduce the target to 1 hp, but don't kill. A secondary effect may apply, based on the spell (like stunning, or slowed, or ability penalties). d) Any instant-kill spell that is sucessfully resisted is reflected back on the caster! e) "Boss" monsters are immune to instant-kill. You can happily dust off the BBEG's lieutenants, but don't bother trying it against him. (Likewise, they are ineffective against PCs, but work fine on cohorts, companions, NPCs, etc.) f) Add Action Points (can be used to increase saves) or Fate Points ("I make this save.") or Escape Points (essentially "C", above, but a limited resource). Pick the option(s) that you like best. And come up with a story-reason this is the way it is.
Ltheb Liadon 09-13-06, 01:35 PM	Heh, I was just refering to the actuall "Death Effect"-type spells, not hold and polymorph effects, which are indeed more potent. (and hard to resist against all of them) Another option, like your Idea "C" could be that death spells simply place the victem at a negative ammount of HP (Equal to the spell's level) so Finger of Death, 7th level, would automatically do enough damage on a failed save to drop the victem to -7 hp. (And dying. But there is a chance to save him, unless some one decided to magic missle the poor sap) My experience for instant-kill spells is more of a high-level perspective. I have been in many games levels 15 to high epic, and spells like death ward, mind blank, true seeing and Proof Against Transmutation armor as well become standard operating proceedure at high levels. There are indeed many things that can one-shot a player, and the higher level you get, the more common they become. The D&D system assumes a certain standard of wealth and power at certain levels, and the system is more than generous in that regard. Now, if players levels 1-12 are having problems with instant-kill spells, they need to change their tactics, (like cast resistance and/or haste on a fighter/barbarian and have him charge the caster) or the DM needs to be a bit nicer (one foe using the spell once isn't too unfair, in fact it teaches them that their career of adventuring or whatnot is a dangerous one, but if every mage they fight has finger of death...) :). Players at levels 13+ have little excuse, being able to afford (or steal) almost any kind of protection, or prepare ahead of time. Don't have a cleric to Death Ward you from the evil Necromancer's spells? Steal the Amulet of Death Ward from the high priest! (If he has one.) Or buy a scroll of it and give it to someone with max ranks in use magic device. In short, if the players are not wealthy or self-sufficient enough to defend against these kinds of attacks, then the attacks become too dangerous to use against them often. (one in a few hundred encounters is enough to keep the players on their toes) But once the players can legitimatly obtain defences, and they know in advance what foes they will face, who likely have this kind of power, or have fallen victem to it before, and still take no steps to protect themselves, then they will probably die (again).
kliate 09-13-06, 03:28 PM	Well, I see a few approaches you could try. 1) Veto spells with the [Death] descriptor. As DM, you're well within your rights to do so. Optionally, allow Wish or Miracle to "make someone dead" on a failed save. 2) Keep the game low-level, putting the spells out of reach of your party. 3) Remove spells beyond a certain level. Compensate spellcasters for their loss (eg, gaining infinite spells per day by spell level). This will likely have the effect of encouraging multiclass characters. 4) Spells beyond a certain level may require elaborate rituals and/or rare components to perform (eg, 1 hour/spell level) - thus "Finger of Death" may still exist, but require several hours to actually cast. It ceases to be a tactical level spell and requires actual strategy to use. Again, compensate spellcasters somewhat for their loss. 5) Add an XP cost to spells you don't want to see used. Finger of Death may snuff out a monster's life instantly, but it also takes a toll on the caster.