Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Paladin-s_Pride Feb 27, 2008 23:55:09	With the upcoming 4th edition, the talk about the brokenness of spells that eliminate you on a single failed saving throw has intensified. I am personally of the persuasion that such spells are indeed broken and I am feeling the sting especially hard right now because my BBEG went down (without a scratch on him) to a failed fortitude save against a flesh to stone spell last week. I have been wracking my brain all week for a way to balance these spells without just outright eliminating them. I tried to tone them down by causing them to have partial effect on a failed saving throw and full effect on a second failed saving throw later, but this made the spells very complicated and caused them to fail to deliver on their name's promise (flesh to stone often doesn't actually turn them to stone, baleful polymorph often doesn't actually polymorph them, etc.) I eventually came on an alternate solution that I call the "scorn spell" action. The basic idea is that some spells with a relatively extreme effect (baleful polymorph, flesh to stone, etc.) are very easy to shrug off under normal circumstances. If the players fail their saving throw, they can use an immediate action to treat the saving throw as a success. However, there are some limitations on this action. -using scorn spell provokes an attack of opportunity. If the target takes damage, the action fails unless the opponent makes a successful concentration check equal to (10+damage taken). I am considering allowing a feat that allows a character to automatically make this check. -the scorn spell action cannot be used if the target is confused, stunned, or panicked. In addition, a target reduced to less than half its normal hitpoints can no longer use the scorn spell action. -it goes without saying, but since it is an immediate action to use, obviously scorn spell can only be used once per round. Any feedback would be appreciated.
#2 jimprofit Feb 28, 2008 1:41:07	It's worth a try, but doesn't kindof defeat the purpose of these effects? Only one petrifying gaze can be attempted in a round, so bassicaly the medusa gets an attack of oppurtunity for free. (Cause nobody's gonna take a failure) I take individual monsters on an individual basis for balancing out. For example the bodak I have my players make three fort saves. If they fail all three, they die. (Fort save 15) If you can't make three saves or roll three 1s then you deserve to die.
#3 Dog_O_War Feb 28, 2008 11:15:06	With the upcoming 4th edition, the talk about the brokenness of spells that eliminate you on a single failed saving throw has intensified. I am personally of the persuasion that such spells are indeed broken and I am feeling the sting especially hard right now because my BBEG went down (without a scratch on him) to a failed fortitude save against a flesh to stone spell last week. I have been wracking my brain all week for a way to balance these spells without just outright eliminating them. I tried to tone them down by causing them to have partial effect on a failed saving throw and full effect on a second failed saving throw later, but this made the spells very complicated and caused them to fail to deliver on their name's promise (flesh to stone often doesn't actually turn them to stone, baleful polymorph often doesn't actually polymorph them, etc.) I eventually came on an alternate solution that I call the "scorn spell" action. The basic idea is that some spells with a relatively extreme effect (baleful polymorph, flesh to stone, etc.) are very easy to shrug off under normal circumstances. If the players fail their saving throw, they can use an immediate action to treat the saving throw as a success. However, there are some limitations on this action. -using scorn spell provokes an attack of opportunity. If the target takes damage, the action fails unless the opponent makes a successful concentration check equal to (10+damage taken). I am considering allowing a feat that allows a character to automatically make this check. -the scorn spell action cannot be used if the target is confused, stunned, or panicked. In addition, a target reduced to less than half its normal hitpoints can no longer use the scorn spell action. -it goes without saying, but since it is an immediate action to use, obviously scorn spell can only be used once per round. Any feedback would be appreciated. What you're doing here is removing the element of death. This makes the game just a pile of numbers with mathematical solutions. Players take X amount of damage; they retreat. Monsters take X amount of damage; they retreat. In order to not take damage, max out skills X,Y, and Z; players no longer have to worry. Monsters do the same; battles become long, boring math equations. Do you use save or die spells on your players? You should. You should also allow for access to resurrection spells. These are elements of the game you are just throwing away; these spells are very potent, and they have their drawbacks - save succeeds, not effect; a wasted action. What it comes down to with these spells is gamble VS sure thing. The sure thing will not remove the problem right away, but it will always have an effect. The gamble might have a much greater effect, or it might do nothing resulting in wasted time. If you do go through with this, you'll note that the AoO is unimportant - if such a spell is cast there is rarely a person there fighting said monster (as the wizard or whoever has said they're dealing with this guy). The concentration check means nothing to non-casters and everything to casters. Only one group will succeed at this task, and it is the one least likely to be drawing the AoO. The other limitations are also pointless; creatures that are stunned, confused, or panicked are never anyone's concern anyways. As for being below half hitpoints, this is to easily metagamed away. The DM usually always knows what the player's HP is at, while the players almost never know what the DM's NPC's are at. This means they will often resent such actions against them, and think you're cheating when their's don't work. Also, players will almost never choose this option now that you've completely nerfed it; it's as good as banning it. My suggestion is just cheat; your players shouldn't know what you roll anyways; if it cheapens a battle that you had been preparing for, then have the BBEG succeed the first time, even if you rolled a fail.
#4 lordtarmos Feb 28, 2008 21:50:50	my players think that as a dm I did a wonderful thing when I said a roll of 1equals a -9 a roll of 20 is a automatic save(this is only on saves) most of the time if they have prepared there characters correctly(cloak of resistance +5, con item and wisdom item, and proper spell resistance) for the group save or dies do not (usually)work on them. and they are currently high enough that if they do die they can usually true res easily enough. I use save or dies and they usually survive easily. I fthey need it easier than that make it -5 on a roll of 1 instead. but there needs to be some threat, and remember they can always be brought back. Just do the players a favor when they are attacked by alot of opponents say 6 or more do not let all of the creatures use save or die spells make it only 1 or 2. what it boils down to is be a smart dm. this has never been a real issue for my players.
#5 catwhoplaysguitar_dup Mar 01, 2008 5:29:23	If you don't want something to die to a save or die spell, without 'misreading' rolls, deathward (armour or spell) is the way to go, have it on the BBEG at the very start of the fight. If the BBEG is a caster - spell (with ability to quicken deathward if dispelled) if fighter/rogue - deathward armour. Someone will eventually do the spellcraft check and realise that the spells were never going to work, then the dispells start flying around, but until then you've got a good fight and the dispells may not succeed.
#6 Paladin-s_Pride Mar 01, 2008 19:17:53	Well, I gave up on the original idea as too complicated to be viable, but I will still nerf spells that eliminate someone completely on a failed save in some way. Death ward is a great defensive spell, but it cannot be gotten in potion form, unfortunately, so the arcane casters cannot easily access it without a divine cohort. My players open every fight with a caster with dispel magic. If they are high enough, I can counter with spell turning, or rings of counterspell, or something of that nature. However, death ward doesn't protect against many things (as far as I know, there is no official spell that protects against either baleful polymorph or flesh to stone). Besides, I really don't like the idea of putting up defensive spells just so a boss can't be one-shotted, and then using other spells and magic items to protect the first set of spells! If I always have to take the spell off the field to make a battle run in a satisfying manner, then I should either change the spell or simply eliminate it entirely. My current idea runs something like this. finger of death--deals 1d6/level damage (max 20d6), half on successful fortitude save. On a failed save the subject instantly dies if the spell deals damage equal to more than half of the target current hit points. Baleful polymorph--roll 2d6/level (max 30d6). The spell doesn't actually deal damage, but if the total rolled exceeds the targets current hp, the target is polymorphed. If the damage doesn't exceed the target's hp, the target is still nauseated for 1 round on a failed saving throw from the shock of briefly changing form then immediately changing back. Flesh to Stone--similar to baleful polymorph above, you roll 2d6/level (max 40d6). If it exceeds the targets current hp, the target is transformed to a statue on a failed saving throw. If the damage doesn't exceed the target's hp, the target is stunned for 1d3 rounds as a residual effect of briefly turning to stone on a failed saving throw. They'd still be very useful spells, and in the right circumstances would be capable of far outstripping the utility of damaging spells, even in their nerfed state.
#7 cranewings Mar 01, 2008 19:48:34	If you ever played Bladur's Gate 2 on the pc, you would know that all high level dnd battles are contests of who can strip the protection magic the fastest. Duking it out with high level wizards is all that you do in that game.
#8 skrap-san Mar 02, 2008 1:00:44	Could you not just do it as 4th ed actually does it? Make saves follow the same basis as armor class.So every time someone cast baleful polymorph etc they have to hit exceed the opponents Fortitude score. And then spell focus could give you a +1 on these checks with chosen school. Seems easier to understand and simpler to implement than actually changing the spells...
#9 Paladin-s_Pride Mar 02, 2008 1:11:28	Could you not just do it as 4th ed actually does it? Make saves follow the same basis as armor class.So every time someone cast baleful polymorph etc they have to hit exceed the opponents Fortitude score. And then spell focus could give you a +1 on these checks with chosen school. I'm not sure I understand. How would this help with the problem that these spells present? (i.e., one attack completely eliminates someone regardless of their level, hit points, etc.) It's now the caster who rolls instead of the monster, but other than that, the situation stays exactly the same.
#10 nonsi Mar 02, 2008 1:32:50	Well, I gave up on the original idea as too complicated to be viable, but I will still nerf spells that eliminate someone completely on a failed save in some way. Death ward is a great defensive spell, but it cannot be gotten in potion form, unfortunately, so the arcane casters cannot easily access it without a divine cohort. My players open every fight with a caster with dispel magic. If they are high enough, I can counter with spell turning, or rings of counterspell, or something of that nature. However, death ward doesn't protect against many things (as far as I know, there is no official spell that protects against either baleful polymorph or flesh to stone). Besides, I really don't like the idea of putting up defensive spells just so a boss can't be one-shotted, and then using other spells and magic items to protect the first set of spells! If I always have to take the spell off the field to make a battle run in a satisfying manner, then I should either change the spell or simply eliminate it entirely. My current idea runs something like this. finger of death--deals 1d6/level damage (max 20d6), half on successful fortitude save. On a failed save the subject instantly dies if the spell deals damage equal to more than half of the target current hit points. Baleful polymorph--roll 2d6/level (max 30d6). The spell doesn't actually deal damage, but if the total rolled exceeds the targets current hp, the target is polymorphed. If the damage doesn't exceed the target's hp, the target is still nauseated for 1 round on a failed saving throw from the shock of briefly changing form then immediately changing back. Flesh to Stone--similar to baleful polymorph above, you roll 2d6/level (max 40d6). If it exceeds the targets current hp, the target is transformed to a statue on a failed saving throw. If the damage doesn't exceed the target's hp, the target is stunned for 1d3 rounds as a residual effect of briefly turning to stone on a failed saving throw. They'd still be very useful spells, and in the right circumstances would be capable of far outstripping the utility of damaging spells, even in their nerfed state. Instead of redefining spells individually and overtaxing yourself with dice rolls, try the following approach (as a guideline): All "save or Die" and Polymorph spells have 3 possibilities: Save successful: no effect. Save failed: Partial effect and a 2nd save is required, with + 4 to the DC. 2nd Save failed: full effect. For "Save or Die" effects, partial effect means taking damage of 1d10 / spell-level. If the damage amounts to more than 1/4 the target's max HP - it is stunned for 1 round. For Polymorph effects, partial effect means taking damage of 1d6 / spell-level. If the damage amounts to more than 1/4 the target's max HP - it is nauseated for 1 round. Use d8s for "Flesh to Stone" and similar effects. For "All or Nothing" mind effects, the 2nd save is made with +8 to the DC and partial effect means confusion for 1 round.
#11 aricandor Mar 02, 2008 3:02:32	Two "solutions" I've been pondering: 1) "Save or die" becomes "Save or take lots of damage", much like Disintegrate. Set die size and number depending on spell levels and you're pretty much set. This usually makes them a little less lethal since you're pretty much counting your Constitution twice for the purpose of surviving. It could open up certain metamagic abuse though, especially with Divine Metamagic or Sudden Metamagic feats. 2) "Save or die" becomes "Save or be set to -9 hit points (and possibly stable, depending on preference)", or one negative hit point short of being dead depending on if you've house ruled the death threshold. This preserves their "one spell knocks the opponent out" if that's your cup of tea and maintains the effectiveness for players while making it less bothersome for players to be subjected to it. Just leave the "Death" descriptor in there for the sake of Raise Dead and protective spells and I think both ways can work to make them less bothersome, while preserving the feel that they're very dangerous and powerful. Of course, you might be more interested in a direct nerf. I have to say I like the idea of making such spells work like the death touch power.
#12 molten_dragon Mar 02, 2008 8:26:38	I just made a simple change in the way these type of spells worked and it has kept my players pretty happy, while still leaving the sense of danger and imminent death alive. In my games, instead of killing you, insta-death spells immediately take you to -9 hitpoints. That way, the character hit still has a chance (if they cleric can get to him in time, or he's lucky and makes his stabilization check), but there's still a threat of imminent death to worry about.
#13 deathbane Mar 02, 2008 22:40:29	Well, I gave up on the original idea as too complicated to be viable, but I will still nerf spells that eliminate someone completely on a failed save in some way. Death ward is a great defensive spell, but it cannot be gotten in potion form, unfortunately, so the arcane casters cannot easily access it without a divine cohort. My players open every fight with a caster with dispel magic. If they are high enough, I can counter with spell turning, or rings of counterspell, or something of that nature. However, death ward doesn't protect against many things (as far as I know, there is no official spell that protects against either baleful polymorph or flesh to stone). Besides, I really don't like the idea of putting up defensive spells just so a boss can't be one-shotted, and then using other spells and magic items to protect the first set of spells! If I always have to take the spell off the field to make a battle run in a satisfying manner, then I should either change the spell or simply eliminate it entirely. My current idea runs something like this. finger of death--deals 1d6/level damage (max 20d6), half on successful fortitude save. On a failed save the subject instantly dies if the spell deals damage equal to more than half of the target current hit points. Baleful polymorph--roll 2d6/level (max 30d6). The spell doesn't actually deal damage, but if the total rolled exceeds the targets current hp, the target is polymorphed. If the damage doesn't exceed the target's hp, the target is still nauseated for 1 round on a failed saving throw from the shock of briefly changing form then immediately changing back. Flesh to Stone--similar to baleful polymorph above, you roll 2d6/level (max 40d6). If it exceeds the targets current hp, the target is transformed to a statue on a failed saving throw. If the damage doesn't exceed the target's hp, the target is stunned for 1d3 rounds as a residual effect of briefly turning to stone on a failed saving throw. They'd still be very useful spells, and in the right circumstances would be capable of far outstripping the utility of damaging spells, even in their nerfed state. Stone body(SPC) and maybe iron body(PHB) protect from any spells that changes the physiology(spelling?) of the creature.
#14 serow_r Mar 10, 2008 9:40:03	How about splitting the casting stats, something like the Favoured Soul or Spirit Shaman?
#15 new_fashion_guy Mar 11, 2008 12:46:41	My suggestion is just cheat; your players shouldn't know what you roll anyways; if it cheapens a battle that you had been preparing for, then have the BBEG succeed the first time, even if you rolled a fail. Excellent advise. While I normally only fudge a roll in the PCs' benefit, if a bad roll can spoil an entire adventure, you need to do something. There is a current trend in D20 gaming to make DMs feel like they're equally bound by the rules. You're not. You need to make sure your players have a good time, and that can include fudging dice from time to time. Just make sure to be fair; if you fudge something for the PC's detriment, you need to be darn sure it's necessary for the adventure, and you need to make sure to give them a break on something to make up for it.
#16 wolf_bladegx Mar 26, 2008 3:22:07	I've always been fond of using a failiure range. so if they fail by 5 or more they die, other wise they just take damage of some sort. or maybe are partially stoned by petrification (stunned maybe). That's always been on a semi consistant case by case basis though. I've never liked save or die spells/abilities, but I'll tell you what, their one of the few things I can put my players up against that actually makes them choose their fights carefully! :D
#17 michaelk Mar 28, 2008 12:08:07	What you're doing here is removing the element of death. This makes the game just a pile of numbers with mathematical solutions. Players take X amount of damage; they retreat. Monsters take X amount of damage; they retreat. In order to not take damage, max out skills X,Y, and Z; players no longer have to worry. Monsters do the same; battles become long, boring math equations. I agree. And as I pointed out in a similar post in the 4e section, save or die spells are balanced intrinsically by the existance of save or live again (and the save is optional) spells. My suggestion is just cheat; your players shouldn't know what you roll anyways; if it cheapens a battle that you had been preparing for, then have the BBEG succeed the first time, even if you rolled a fail. I hate this suggestion with every bone of my body.
#18 cranewings Mar 28, 2008 22:50:31	I like the sudden death. Ever read a comic? Superheroes get one shot knocked out all the time, all.... the.... time.... The occasional super defeat makes the real battle more enjoyable.
#19 morandirnailo Mar 29, 2008 2:01:33	I think the idea of a Death effect knocking you to -9 is a good idea; to balance this, you could make Resurrection magic much harder to come by. That way dying is harder, but so is coming back. A variant I've considered using is that failing vs. a Death effect takes you to -(spell level), so failing against a 4th-level death effect would take you to -4, while failing against a 9th-level death effect would take you to -9. You're out of the combat with either, but the more powerful spell has a far greater chance of actually killing you. As for petrification or polymorph effects, you could rule that the transformation is not instantaneous, but instead takes a number of rounds. For instance: Round 1 - Take one standard, move, or swift action. Speed is reduced to 5. Round 2 - Take one move or swift action limited to upper body movement. Round 3 - Take one swift action; can only involve speaking or basic hand movements. Somatic components are impossible. After taking the action, the transformation is complete. This way the subject has a chance to reverse the effect in some way, or at least get in a parting shot. Of course there are other ways around this; Contingency is one of them. Have this on your BBEG, with the trigger being something like "should I be killed, transformed, or immobilized;" the result being a Teleport/Plane Shift to a safe location, preferably one staffed by spellcasting minions. This way the PCs win the day, but the BBEG will be back for revenge... Mor
#20 skrap-san Mar 29, 2008 2:28:43	A variant I've considered using is that failing vs. a Death effect takes you to -(spell level), so failing against a 4th-level death effect would take you to -4, while failing against a 9th-level death effect would take you to -9. You're out of the combat with either, but the more powerful spell has a far greater chance of actually killing you. I really like this one. Consider it stolen. And if you use it with the action point system where you may spend an action point to become stable I'm happy. You don't have to die horribly but you still don not want to be hit by that crazy beam of ultimate not so good things.
#21 half_dragon_infernal Mar 29, 2008 9:33:00	I like that idea of -(spell level), but how would I adapt it to a dead threshold of -(1/4 of hitpoints)?
#22 eldritch_lord Mar 29, 2008 10:21:50	I've always been fond of using a failiure range. so if they fail by 5 or more they [...] are partially stoned Where did you get that spell? Some of my players would consider that a save-or-win. ;)