Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 alyss_dup Apr 19, 2008 22:56:14	Situation 1: In the first round of combat, the party opens a door and is hit with a circle of death. Everyone in the party rolls badly and dies. Situation 2: In the first round of combat, the mighty undead horror lunges forwards and injures the party rogue, who responds with a blow with his +2 quarterstaff of disruption. The undead monster fails its save and dies. Both of these situations have happened in my games. Save or die effects, against which the target has a 5% chance of failing however good their saves are, really suck. So, I want something else. This something will be used to replace almost all save or die effects: spells, weapons with disruption or similar effects, massive damage, coup de graces; the lot. The instant death things I'm happy keeping are race specific ones, like a vampire's vulnerability to sunlight/stakes, and the rakshasa's vulnerability to blessed crossbow bolts. That kind of stuff's infrequent enough to be exciting and interesting. Does anyone know of a variant/house rule that would cover this?
#2 Fireclave Apr 20, 2008 0:22:50	If you don't like them so much, why not drop them completely? Complaints should be minimal from your players since that still leaves plenty of save-o-SOL spells to make foes bloody damn near dead. Is there any reason you can seeing for salvaging them? Barring that, I've often see this houserule tossed around: Any save-or-die dies reduces you to -1 HP instead. And, personally, I suggest simply dropping massive damage all together. I never felt that dying due to "massive" damage was all that heroic, let alone making less sense when you get into higher levels and epic levels (I have a bajillion HP, but a 5% chance I'll die every round? WTF?).
#3 etarnon Apr 20, 2008 2:52:15	Are you the DM in this game or a player?
#4 alyss_dup Apr 20, 2008 9:39:11	DM. As I see it, a blance needs to be struck between the PCs being wary of getting killed, thus making combat exciting and tense, and their character remaining alive long enough for them to actually roleplay them concisely. In some campaigns it's not a major issue, because even if the PCs can't raise their own dead they can at least pay to have it done, or I can get an NPC to loan them the money and then made that debt-collection a plot hook. But these issues came up while running the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft adventure, which is an absolute bastard for PCs. They're gestalts, and we've still had a total of three characters die (and the party has three players. One player lost two, another has lost one). Two of those deaths were from being coup de graced, and another from failing the save for a circle of death. The most anoying thing about the circle of death kill was that it happened in the first round of combat, and was cast from a scroll by a 5th level cleric. Granted, the PCs should have been a little more stealthy in their approach of the cleric, but a party shouldn't really be losing characters over something like that. The encounter was meant to be an average challenge, not a near TPK. I think I might have it so that: -specific vulnerabilities remain -massive damage and shock from coup de graces are both removed -magical save or die effects instead deal 1d6 damage equal to the caster's/person using the weapon's level +2, like the death attack of the assassin base class created by K. A successful Fort save halves the damage. What do you think? Would that be dangerous enough to make those spells/items worth getting, but not so powerful that the PCs will drop instantly.
#5 tequila_sunrise Apr 20, 2008 13:56:23	People have come up with all sorts of ways to deal with SoD problems, but the simplest and most effective one remains "just don't use them." Sit your players down and say "by the ways that I've TPKed you guys, or nearly TPKed you in the past, I now see that SoD effects are bad. So from now on, I'm going to ignore them so long as you do too." I think your 1d6/level thing will work fine too though. Why the "+2" though? Also, I wouldn't have weapon damage based on the wielder's level unless you scale all weapon enhancements with level. +4d6 sounds appropriate, and if a player wants more damage he can stack disruption enhancements. TS
#6 jaxgaret Apr 20, 2008 14:22:31	Instead of killing you, SoDs drop you to zero HP and you are Stunned for 1 round. Makes it still really bad to get hit by one, but you might make it.
#7 alyss_dup Apr 20, 2008 17:52:27	People have come up with all sorts of ways to deal with SoD problems, but the simplest and most effective one remains "just don't use them." Sit your players down and say "by the ways that I've TPKed you guys, or nearly TPKed you in the past, I now see that SoD effects are bad. So from now on, I'm going to ignore them so long as you do too." I think your 1d6/level thing will work fine too though. Why the "+2" though? Also, I wouldn't have weapon damage based on the wielder's level unless you scale all weapon enhancements with level. +4d6 sounds appropriate, and if a player wants more damage he can stack disruption enhancements. TS Good point, I'll do that.
#8 Paladin-s_Pride Apr 21, 2008 20:16:30	While more complicated than some variants, I like making save or die effects hitpoint dependent. For example, I have finger of death deal 1d6/level (fort for half), and on a failed saving throw you die if the spells damages you for more than half your current hitpoints. The reason I like this solution is that it makes it easier to balance save or die effects against other effects, makes it harder to one-shot powerful monsters, and most importantly, allows the wizard to be part of the fun instead of subverting it. If a save-or-die kills a creature, it's typically because the fighter and rogue already damaged the creature. If it doesn't kill the creature off instantly, it still does some damage. Overall, it just seems more satisfying to me.
#9 wraithstrike Apr 22, 2008 0:01:36	Situation 1: In the first round of combat, the party opens a door and is hit with a circle of death. Everyone in the party rolls badly and dies. Situation 2: In the first round of combat, the mighty undead horror lunges forwards and injures the party rogue, who responds with a blow with his +2 quarterstaff of disruption. The undead monster fails its save and dies. Both of these situations have happened in my games. Save or die effects, against which the target has a 5% chance of failing however good their saves are, really suck. So, I want something else. This something will be used to replace almost all save or die effects: spells, weapons with disruption or similar effects, massive damage, coup de graces; the lot. The instant death things I'm happy keeping are race specific ones, like a vampire's vulnerability to sunlight/stakes, and the rakshasa's vulnerability to blessed crossbow bolts. That kind of stuff's infrequent enough to be exciting and interesting. Does anyone know of a variant/house rule that would cover this? Save or dies are spells that should be used sparingly, on both sides. If the party has a favorite save or die tactic then give a defense against it. There is no spell that can't be countered in some way.
#10 aamaxu Apr 22, 2008 7:11:29	Instead of killing you, SoDs drop you to zero HP and you are Stunned for 1 round. Makes it still really bad to get hit by one, but you might make it. So you delay your death by one round. I'd rather, as a player, go down with that CoD, makes it all look way cooler. And removing coup de grace? What is the reason with that decision? Let's think of it this way; example1 (w/o CoG): DM: you see the evil cleric sleeping in his bunk PC: I go and slit this throat with my dagger. Oh poop, only 1d4 damage and he'll wake up. I guess I do not know how to slit a sleeping man's throat after all. example2 (w/ CoG): DM: You see the evil cleric sleeping in his bunk PC: I go and slit his throat. Should the critical not kill him, he'll make a fort save or die. I find example2 way better. I mean, I can't really imagine someone not able to slay a helpless enemy, should he be paralyzed, sleeping etc.
#11 SirGog Apr 22, 2008 9:30:14	My houserule that covered this well was to make instakill spells deal a set of 100 damage. Still sucks to get hit by Slay Living, it still slays most of the living, but the fight continues.
#12 alyss_dup Apr 22, 2008 11:45:00	So you delay your death by one round. I'd rather, as a player, go down with that CoD, makes it all look way cooler. And removing coup de grace? What is the reason with that decision? Let's think of it this way; example1 (w/o CoG): DM: you see the evil cleric sleeping in his bunk PC: I go and slit this throat with my dagger. Oh poop, only 1d4 damage and he'll wake up. I guess I do not know how to slit a sleeping man's throat after all. example2 (w/ CoG): DM: You see the evil cleric sleeping in his bunk PC: I go and slit his throat. Should the critical not kill him, he'll make a fort save or die. I find example2 way better. I mean, I can't really imagine someone not able to slay a helpless enemy, should he be paralyzed, sleeping etc. Hold Person spells and zombies delivering coup de graces to the players is not fun. I'm not removing the automatic hit or automatic critical. Maybe I ought to bump up the critical damage, to it's an automatic critical and deals and extra 4d6 damage (like the SoD effects with magic weapons).
#13 aamaxu Apr 22, 2008 15:32:30	Hold Person spells and zombies delivering coup de graces to the players is not fun. I'm not removing the automatic hit or automatic critical. Maybe I ought to bump up the critical damage, to it's an automatic critical and deals and extra 4d6 damage (like the SoD effects with magic weapons). Then again, Single Actions Only (Ex) Zombies have poor reflexes and can perform only a single move action or attack action each round. A zombie can move up to its speed and attack in the same round, but only if it attempts a charge. Since coup de grace is a full-round action, zombies can only wish for these.
#14 Metafictional Apr 22, 2008 15:57:26	You know, I've had a long series of arguments about Save-or-Die effects with a friend of mine lately. We both agree, insta-kills suck. However, I refuse to remove them from the game, for two reasons. 1) as a consequence of the way the game scales, characters eventually get very high AC's and hit point totals. This is even worse for monsters, where a creature of your CR often has twice (or more) your hit dice. Defeating such a creature with hit point damage can be a royal pain, and so there needs to exist an alternative means of defeating the beast. While Save-or-Suck spells usually work as such, not every class gets both types on their spell lists. 2) I believe, used with appropriate setup, Save-or-Die effects can be a potent tool in the DM arsenal to scare your players to actually use tactics instead of hit-and-smash. After all, even a 200 hp Barbarian thinks twice about facing a Medusa, even if he has a +15 bonus to his Fort save, because there's still that 5% chance... This forces groups to use their brains and delve into their pool of resources to win the day. Now granted, you CANNOT use a Save-or-Die as a "Surprise! Save or Die!" In this case. I wouldn't ever advise using a Medusa as an ambush; if the players don't have an opportunity to realize "ouch, Medusa, let's think about this", then you're just being malicious, and that's not fun. That's my view at least. And if the PC's use a death spell and it actually works, more power to them! After all, we want them to win, right? Sure sure, it was cheaply won, and nobody is satisfied, but the game goes on, and there's always next time (plus there's always ways to make the players sweat for offing an important enemy with a cheap shot).
#15 tequila_sunrise Apr 22, 2008 18:49:24	In an ideal game, SoDs exist but don't require every high level monster and arch-villain to have blanket immunities to 90% of SoD effects just so they remain challenging. One of my ongoing projects is a Spell Book which is meant to completely replace the hodge podge of published spells that we currently have in 3e. The solution to SoD spells which I've come up with for my spell book is that each SoD spell has a CR cap (relative to the caster's level); above that cap and the SoD effect doesn't work but a much lesser secondary effect does. For example, Slay instantly kills creatures whose CR is equal or less than the caster's level minus 6 who also fail their save. If the creature is too strong or passes its save it instead takes 1 damage per caster level. This way I get to put all those classic literary SoD elements in my game as background and plot devices, but I don't have to apply twelve blanket immunities to every high level foe or turn my game into russian roulette. But that's beyond most gamers' tolerance for non-RAW material. *sigh* TS
#16 etarnon Apr 23, 2008 6:57:19	I think there's a place for Save or Die type effects in a game, since it makes it super challenging and deadly. If you know that the enemy has save or die spells and such, you're gonna think twice about wading in. If you don't know the enemy has it, and it gets used, this means your party should have done more pre-mission reconnaissance. It's a stylistic choice, I think. in that some players want to have characters live to level 40, and some want the thrill of instant death all around.
#17 roguewiz_dup Apr 23, 2008 8:36:30	NM. Re-read your post. Didn't notice the "disruption" part (/forehead) "Save or die" effects can be fun. They add a little bit of "epic" to a non-epic game. The problem is when the DM artificially inflates things things to account for certain players or certain spells. If every undead magically has a base 10 fort save, then the players will notice and slowly lose interest. DMs should not artifically adjust things because of their inability to run a balanced game. As an example, I have a DM that tries to adjust his encounters for certain players and builds. I enjoy playing Rogues. I usually have a few Rogue levels in my build because nobody else builds Rogues and we usually need someone to remove traps. However, I also have a fair amount of sneak attack in doing so. The DM knows this, and thus throws us against undead in almost every encounter. This isn't fun. As another example, the same DM enjoys variant rules. As a matter of fact, you wouldn't recognize his games for DnD. Because he uses so many variants, the powerscale of the players can go up drastically, especially in the hands of a player that knows how to push the rules to the limit. If a single player builds a character that is substantially more powerful than another player, and the DM adjusts combat to equal the powerful player, then the encounter quickly becomes too dangerous for the other players. (This is partly my fault for using the rules to my advantage) "Save or die" effects should be used sparingly, if at all. A DM should only hand out a few "save or die" weapons, that will add a little flavor to the adventure.
#18 alyss_dup Apr 23, 2008 20:18:05	I think there's a place for Save or Die type effects in a game, since it makes it super challenging and deadly. If you know that the enemy has save or die spells and such, you're gonna think twice about wading in. If you don't know the enemy has it, and it gets used, this means your party should have done more pre-mission reconnaissance. It's a stylistic choice, I think. in that some players want to have characters live to level 40, and some want the thrill of instant death all around. Sometimes it isn't possible. Danovich, the priest in the church in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, has a scroll of circle of death. How the hell are the PCs meant to creep up to the church, get the scroll out of his pocket, and read it before he sees them and uses it?
#19 Fireclave Apr 23, 2008 22:42:14	Sometimes it isn't possible. Danovich, the priest in the church in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, has a scroll of circle of death. How the hell are the PCs meant to creep up to the church, get the scroll out of his pocket, and read it before he sees them and uses it? Not familiar with the module, but is there any reason why a combination of Hide, Move Silently, and Sleight of Hand wouldn't work? Possibly adding spells like Invisibility, Sculpt Sound, and Nondetection in for good measure? Not saying whether or not it's worth the risk, but it seems possible at least.
#20 etarnon Apr 23, 2008 23:24:23	Sometimes it isn't possible. Danovich, the priest in the church in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, has a scroll of circle of death. How the hell are the PCs meant to creep up to the church, get the scroll out of his pocket, and read it before he sees them and uses it? Augury. Greater Scrying. Clerical Detect Magic. Divination. I could find more, I'm sure. And is the module as written calling for him to go "Guns Blazing" on whoever walks through the door? I mean, did it really go down as "We open the door" ... "Save vs death?"
#21 alyss_dup Apr 23, 2008 23:56:00	-Augery wouldn't give anywhere near a specific enough description. -Scrying/greater scrying wouldn't be any use either. All Danovich does is sit in front of an altar and chant all the time. He never gets out the scroll and reads it, so the PCs wouldn't know he had it on him. The latter is also above the level cap. -Detect magic tells auras at best, not secific spells. You also have to have line of sight to get a particular aura, and unless you were a caster with a good Hide skill (very unlikely) Danovich would see you through the window. -Like Augury, Divination only provides advice, not specifics. And unless the advice is "Danovich has a scroll of circle of death", it's not going to be terribly helpful. And yes, Danovich's first action is to use his scroll, on the first hostile he sees. And he considers everyone hostile.
#22 alyss_dup Apr 23, 2008 23:56:23	-Augery wouldn't give anywhere near a specific enough description. -Scrying/greater scrying wouldn't be any use either. All Danovich does is sit in front of an altar and chant all the time. He never gets out the scroll and reads it, so the PCs wouldn't know he had it on him. The latter is also above the level cap. -Detect magic tells auras at best, not secific spells. You also have to have line of sight to get a particular aura, and unless you were a caster with a good Hide skill (very unlikely) Danovich would see you through the window. -Like Augury, Divination only provides advice, not specifics. And unless the advice is "Danovich has a scroll of circle of death", it's not going to be terribly helpful. And yes, Danovich's first action is to use his scroll, on the first hostile he sees. And he considers everyone hostile.
#23 etarnon Apr 24, 2008 0:38:01	So an augury of "Is the church dangerous?" not going to work? "Will we likely die if we go in?" If the guy detects magic through the walls of the church, I don't need a specific aura. I look at the party, ad say, "Yo ho, there's magic in there, this land is accursed, perhaps we should avoid whatever it is." It comes down to what people posted earlier. If it is such a problem, don't use it. Or, conversely, all this instant death adds greatly to the horror factor. Certainly, some foreshadowing is in order. Perhaps they didn't write any into your module. What's the Number on it? I'd like to see the whole text. I've played I-6, is that what you are referring to, or something else?
#24 DKase Apr 24, 2008 1:22:26	So an augury of "Is the church dangerous?" not going to work? "Will we likely die if we go in?" In that adventure, your going to get a "yes" to that particular augury more often then not. There were a great number of problems with this particular encounter (most prominently, Danovich couldn't cast the scroll since it's not on his spell list and he doesn't have the UMD to pull it off), but that's a different thread. SoD spells royally suck in general. A fix that my DM uses is that it deals CON damage instead, just enough to kill a 'typical' person instantly (3d6). This way you still make the battle much more tense as the PC's are deprived of precious HPs and nerfed Fortitude saves, pose a threat to low CON characters or weakened PCs, but still grant a wide margin for recovery on a failed save.
#25 etarnon Apr 24, 2008 3:00:51	Dkase, thanks for explaining that. So it's a module authoring problem. I've just always thought that in adventuring, it's a life or death challenge. I love playing and running very low level adventures, for just that reason.
#26 alyss_dup Apr 24, 2008 19:06:47	Keeping it tense with the threat of death is good, and sometimes characters need to die to enforce that. But if the PCs keep dying all the time the players can't create characters from them. There's no time to make the character familiar, no emotive punch when they go. It's just annoying and means more work (making new characters). 3d6 damage isn't a bad fix for spells. Keeping the +4d6 damage with items though.
#27 ladyalaria Apr 26, 2008 9:24:04	The solution to SoD spells which I've come up with for my spell book is that each SoD spell has a CR cap (relative to the caster's level); above that cap and the SoD effect doesn't work but a much lesser secondary effect does. For example, Slay instantly kills creatures whose CR is equal or less than the caster's level minus 6 who also fail their save. If the creature is too strong or passes its save it instead takes 1 damage per caster level. This way I get to put all those classic literary SoD elements in my game as background and plot devices, but I don't have to apply twelve blanket immunities to every high level foe or turn my game into russian roulette. But that's beyond most gamers' tolerance for non-RAW material. *sigh* TS I like your approach a lot. The trick to getting players to accept these kinds of "nerfs" is to provide a compensating advantage. For example,you might give the spell a "mass" effect on even lower level victims. So if you use Slay on creatures 8 level lowers it affects up to four of them, and so on. Your spellcasting players will feel less "ripped-off".
#28 mplindustries Apr 26, 2008 12:30:06	From the very beginning of 3.X, I have always houseruled instant death effects. I just have them drop you to -1 and dying. This way, not only are you out of the fight, but an ally also has to lose a round to stabilize you. And if you die anyway, its not deus ex machina, its because your buddies didn't save you. Oh, and I also do common sense things, like not hold personing my PCs and then coup de gracing them. Wow, I'd hate your game, whoever does that. I just figure, why would an enemy go for someone who is helpless unless they were somehow uncontrolled? Thats not cinematic. Side rule that I also find helpful: If you take damage while Coup de Gracing (because it provokes an AoO), the attempt is ruined. Until the Tome of Battle, I allowed a Concentration check to continue Coup de Gracing, but now melee characters actually take that skill, so its too easy. Of course, I've always done all this because I don't allow any resurrection effects to work after 2-3 minutes have elapsed (I've done both and neither had significantly different ramifications). I extensively change other aspects of the game, too, namely dependence on magic items (I use only a small handful of magic items throughout an entire campaign), and the versatility of spellcasters, but that shouldn't have any effect on the instant death houserule.
#29 wraithstrike Apr 26, 2008 14:43:14	I like your approach a lot. The trick to getting players to accept these kinds of "nerfs" is to provide a compensating advantage. For example,you might give the spell a "mass" effect on even lower level victims. So if you use Slay on creatures 8 level lowers it affects up to four of them, and so on. Your spellcasting players will feel less "ripped-off". If you are going to nerf it like that then lower the spell level. Most of the time players wont fight anything that far below them, and if I spend a slot on a high level spell then I expect to use it. It would be easier to ask for what spells they take each time they level and prepare a defense against that spell. Don't make the spell fail everytime, but you could boost the npc's save or have an item that blocks the 1st or 2nd attempt of that spell so you don't even have to roll for a save if you are using a BBEG.
#30 jimprofit Apr 26, 2008 17:48:06	I'd prefer to replace save-or-die with save-or-suck. Here's one example. Bodak Gaze: When the gaze attack meets your eyes, you have to make a fortitude saving throw DC 15 or the bodak's charisma score. Whichever is higher. If you fail, take Xd6 in negative energy damage, X is equal to the bodak's charisma score of 15, whichever is greater. If you die by this attack, you transform into a bodak yourself within 1d4 minutes. Still sounds really bad doesn't it? It should, the damn thing's going to atleast deal 15d6 damage on a failed saving throw! The difference is now you have more options; damage reduction, energy resistance, etc. Closing your eyes grants a 50% miss chance of the gaze, but most people don't want to leave themselves blinded in battle. Now the bodak actually looks more reasonable. I mean afterall, if he could just gaze attack you, why doesn't he? Now he has to rely on your weak fortitude and hope it deals enough damage to annihalate you. Another house-rule I've made is stat damage does not effect your modifiers anymore then is visible. Here's an example. Say someone's poison bite deals 1d6 strength damage. Ouch, that hurt like a mother****er, now your suddenly not so good at using that spear and everything feels heavy. However, if it dealt say 1d6 constitution damage, yeah, you feel less healthy and your fort save goes down, but you're not going to lose HP. Because you gained that HP already. You watched it! You cannot UNwatch it! lol... So stat damage effects are good if you ask me. Because they have a sense of danger and can quickly but not too quickly kill-off a foe. A few poison darts may do just as good as having a bodak in your dungeon. Why do you think kobolds set-up traps?
#31 blacksheepcannibal Apr 26, 2008 18:25:10	IMHO, this comes down to the DM knowing the encounter, how it's gonna effect the characters, what resources the characters are likely to have, and how it's going to play out. Personally, I run an Eberron campaign, and the players are -the heroes-, so take my house rules with a grain of salt. This might not fit for all campaigns. When a player is reduced to 0 hit points, they are staggered. Further damage causes the player to fall to the ground, dying (unless they have the diehard feat, which lets players stay up in the negatives). For clarification, an attack can reduce a player from positive hp to negative hp. Each round, unless they receive healing (magic or skill or alchemy or whatever), they have a 10% chance to stabilize. A player who reaches his Constitution score in negative hit points dies, and their soul is released. rez plz. When a player is hit by an effect that causes "death" - circle of death, massive damage, or any save-or-die effect, they are automatically reduced to -1 hp. Some exceptions occur - for example, an Illithid removing your brain, which kills you instantly, or any effect that beheads you (vorpal, etc). Monsters automatically die when reduced to 0 or less hit points (save for heroic monsters). This reduces book-keeping, and is all around more simple. As well, I don't often use Save-or-Die situations very often at all. Nor do I have monsters coup-de-grace in the middle of combat either. I prefer damage over either effect; in a rare instance I might use one, but I find the entire idea distasteful -in most situations-. In the case of the OP ravenloft scenario, I would not have given the NPC that scroll to begin with, opting instead for perhaps some sort of mass de-buff.
#32 wraithstrike Apr 27, 2008 3:12:19	The difference is now you have more options; damage reduction, energy resistance, etc. Closing your eyes grants a 50% miss chance of the gaze, but most people don't want to leave themselves blinded in battle. It is not a physical attack so that rules out DR, and it is not an energy attack so energy resistance cant apply, but I do agree that bodak's gaze does suck. I took one out of an adventure so my party would not have to deal with it.
#33 OneWinged4ngel May 06, 2008 3:22:30	A very easy way to "fix" most save or die spells is to simply give them a one round casting time. This gives them a more dramatic feel, in addition to making them far more prone to interruption than normal spells. Quick, easy, and effective.
#34 soul_harverster May 06, 2008 10:40:03	Both of these situations have happened in my games. Save or die effects, against which the target has a 5% chance of failing however good their saves are, really suck. This seems more of a problem related to Automatic Failure rule than a problem related to save or die effects. How about changing how that works? One variant makes you roll another die and bestow the number as a penalty to the saving throw.