D&D (2024) It Is 2025 And Save Or Suck Spells Still Suck (the fun out of the game)

[James Gasik]

This is wrong. Most incapacitating monster abilities have been reduced to one round.

I don't know why I said 2024 when I meant 2014, oops.

The 2024 version is this, apologies:

Mind Blast (Recharge 5–6). Intelligence Saving Throw: DC 15, each creature in a 60-foot Cone. Failure: 31 (6d8 + 4) Psychic damage, and the target has the Stunned condition until the end of the mind flayer's next turn. Success: Half damage only.

 

[Stalker0]

I will note that the suggestion spell in the OP didn't impact the dragon, just his associate. I mean...its that where we want the save or sucks to actually work? We are focusing a lot on boss protections...but in this case it wasn't the boss, but the minion of the boss that got the whammy. If PCs can't give a big whammy to the lesser guys in a fight than who can they whammy?

On the subject of boss' and save/suck....I do like A5e's take with legendary resistance, where you can use one but the monster is often left weakened in some other way. That adds some feels good back into the mechanic, as to me there's nothing more deflating for a spellcaster to cast your big spell, have the BBEG actually fail the save....and then go "nope, nvm he's fine, move on". But when its "well your spell was resisted but you see a crack form in the powerful draconic scales, looks like his armor might have lowered....the spellcaster can still feel good that they accomplished something.

The best solution for a number of tables is to create degrees of spell effect. Boss monsters never suffer the full effect, always some lesser one. But this is a rules heavy approach, requiring more rules and more tracking.

One thing I wish we saw more of, I wish there were more save/sucks that didn't just remove actions from the battle....no one likes twiddling their thumbs in a combat. Instead, I want more effects like "you have vulnerability to fire for 1 round". That still sucks, but its a much more active way. Instead of "alright PC your out of the fight this round ttyl", its "alright PC you will now take double damage from all of the fire in this room and that red dragon over there....what do you do?"

 

[James Gasik]

I will note that the suggestion spell in the OP didn't impact the dragon, just his associate. I mean...its that where we want the save or sucks to actually work? We are focusing a lot on boss protections...but in this case it wasn't the boss, but the minion of the boss that got the whammy. If PCs can't give a big whammy to the lesser guys in a fight than who can they whammy?

On the subject of boss' and save/suck....I do like A5e's take with legendary resistance, where you can use one but the monster is often left weakened in some other way. That adds some feels good back into the mechanic, as to me there's nothing more deflating for a spellcaster to cast your big spell, have the BBEG actually fail the save....and then go "nope, nvm he's fine, move on". But when its "well your spell was resisted but you see a crack form in the powerful draconic scales, looks like his armor might have lowered....the spellcaster can still feel good that they accomplished something.

The best solution for a number of tables is to create degrees of spell effect. Boss monsters never suffer the full effect, always some lesser one. But this is a rules heavy approach, requiring more rules and more tracking.

One thing I wish we saw more of, I wish there were more save/sucks that didn't just remove actions from the battle....no one likes twiddling their thumbs in a combat. Instead, I want more effects like "you have vulnerability to fire for 1 round". That still sucks, but its a much more active way. Instead of "alright PC your out of the fight this round ttyl", its "alright PC you will now take double damage from all of the fire in this room and that red dragon over there....what do you do?"

This is a fair point. If you're fighting several foes and you Banish a brute so you can focus on the BBEG, is that really foul play?

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that many NPC's and monsters lack saving throw proficiencies. I think that if PC's get 2 proficiencies, NPC's should as well. That should balance things out a lot better than giving everything legendary resistances.

For example, just yesterday, we were fighting a pack of shadow wolves led by their alpha. I naturally assume (mostly due to previous edition experience) that simple, tough, melee enemies are going to have great Con saves. Imagine my surprise when the Monk easily stun locked the Alpha who apparently had a Con of 14?!

Yeesh.

 

[payn]

I will note that the suggestion spell in the OP didn't impact the dragon, just his associate. I mean...its that where we want the save or sucks to actually work? We are focusing a lot on boss protections...but in this case it wasn't the boss, but the minion of the boss that got the whammy. If PCs can't give a big whammy to the lesser guys in a fight than who can they whammy?

On the subject of boss' and save/suck....I do like A5e's take with legendary resistance, where you can use one but the monster is often left weakened in some other way. That adds some feels good back into the mechanic, as to me there's nothing more deflating for a spellcaster to cast your big spell, have the BBEG actually fail the save....and then go "nope, nvm he's fine, move on". But when its "well your spell was resisted but you see a crack form in the powerful draconic scales, looks like his armor might have lowered....the spellcaster can still feel good that they accomplished something.

The best solution for a number of tables is to create degrees of spell effect. Boss monsters never suffer the full effect, always some lesser one. But this is a rules heavy approach, requiring more rules and more tracking.

One thing I wish we saw more of, I wish there were more save/sucks that didn't just remove actions from the battle....no one likes twiddling their thumbs in a combat. Instead, I want more effects like "you have vulnerability to fire for 1 round". That still sucks, but its a much more active way. Instead of "alright PC your out of the fight this round ttyl", its "alright PC you will now take double damage from all of the fire in this room and that red dragon over there....what do you do?"

Sounds like what PF2 did. A solo has defenses so strong that any save or suck is likely in the 20% or lower success chance range. The pros are you have to use lesser spells to alley-opp the fighter and bring the boss down with team work. The downside is obviously your most powerful spells being shelved to force the former.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

yeah, nothing is more fun that fail a single save on 1st round of combat, be out for 1 minute or 1 day(effect is the same) and go on your PC to play Starcraft or whatever while everyone else play the session...

Why play a dice game to begin with if combat is fun for you without actual risk?

Incapacitating effects shift the game focus from monotonous combat rounds to finding ways to avoid sources, protect against, or cure the incapacitating effect. For example: Sneaking past the basilisk rather than fighting it. Or ambushing it by securing a tarp around its eyes.

Players being cut out of the action for extended periods of time is more of a DM-side issue. Standard workarounds are to have another PC available temporarily, to offer the player control of an NPC in the mean time, and/or to let the player run or RP some of the monsters.

 

[billd91]

For example, just yesterday, we were fighting a pack of shadow wolves led by their alpha. I naturally assume (mostly due to previous edition experience) that simple, tough, melee enemies are going to have great Con saves. Imagine my surprise when the Monk easily stun locked the Alpha who apparently had a Con of 14?!

Nothing wrong with a Con of 14. That's a +2 hp/die and a +2 to Con saves. Pretty robust in any scale that isn't skewed by the stats of player characters.

 

[Distracted DM]

I don't like anyone being stunlocked out of a combat unless they're an unimportant mook or bodyguard. Having the boss unable to act? That sucks. Players? Even worse.
I hate my players' missing their turns in 5e.. this isn't simpler systems where a round of combat takes less than a minute or two. Modern DnD turns can take time!
I much prefer debilitating effects that nerf them, rather than Stun completely locking out of them making choices. I house-ruled the Stunned condition for this reason: it's basically like being Slowed, except everything's also at disadvantage and anything that Stun would auto-fail you still auto-fail. So PCs can still do something, even if it's not full-on.

If you're petrified.. well crap, that's a longer-term issue that goes beyond this combat :'D

So I actually sort of like that, for example, ghouls' paralysis in 5e24 only lasts one round! It also makes it so that if you save, you can still be paralyzed next round, rather than being immune to ghoul paralysis for a whole day. I never cared for that "immune for 24hrs" solution.

 

[James Gasik]

Nothing wrong with a Con of 14. That's a +2 hp/die and a +2 to Con saves. Pretty robust in any scale that isn't skewed by the stats of player characters.

It's bad when it only gives you a +2 save against a fairly mean spell though! I was expecting a higher Con and/or save proficiency to make a creature like that fairly immune to a certain type of spell and I was dead wrong.

It really took until I started DMing 5e to realize how many creatures actually have terrible saves to protect them from some really debilitating effects. If you're rocking a DC 15-16 save DC, only having a +2 save is pretty rough.

It's bad enough for players, but at least they can take steps to mitigate it. Like, we were up against an enemy that had a blinding aura that stunned you if you too close to it and we realized fast we did not want to fail any of those saves, so we actually got our Cleric to cast Bless instead of his usual Spirit Guardians, and that tiny bonus really made a difference. I take Resilient on all of my characters, even if it means I can't get a 20 in my important stat (which is why my level 10 Wizard still only has an 18 Int) because there are saves you just don't want to fail, like the above.

And on a long enough timeline, something is going to target one of your bad saves, since most every character has a few of them, and the DC's can eventually get to "cannot save on a 20" in some cases, and all the advantage in the world won't save you.

I've got my DM afraid of Synaptic Static now, because unless they're immune to psychic damage, there's not much his enemies can do about the "muddled thoughts" effect (as I understand it, you can't even negate it with Dispel Magic since it's an instantaneous spell? I think?) and as it's no concentration, it can stack with similar effects like Bane or a source of Disadvantage to just turn off all the low Int monsters.

He doesn't want to nerf it, since it's a 5th-level spell and he feels the power level is appropriate, it's just a bit much. I feel our game will end soon because worse spells are in the future. I could just not take spells like that, but then we encounter enemies like the above blind/stun every turn aura guy who are just that much worse, lol, so I feel like I have to keep things like that locked down if we're going to survive.

It really makes me miss 4e where the individual spells had weaker effects, rarely lasted more than a turn, but could be used more often than these big limited use nukes that are either duds or can turn an encounter inside out.

 

[Stalker0]

Why play a dice game to begin with if combat is fun for you without actual risk?

Incapacitating effects shift the game focus from monotonous combat rounds to finding ways to avoid sources, protect against, or cure the incapacitating effect. For example: Sneaking past the basilisk rather than fighting it. Or ambushing it by securing a tarp around its eyes.

Players being cut out of the action for extended periods of time is more of a DM-side issue. Standard workarounds are to have another PC available temporarily, to offer the player control of an NPC in the mean time, and/or to let the player run or RP some of the monsters.

Risk of damage, risk of death....sure that's exciting!

Risk of leaving the table for an hour because I have nothing to contribute...not so great.

Part of this is simply the length of dnd combat. A round of combat can take 30 min or even an hour if its an involved one. Even an effect that takes you out for a single round can still be a solid portion of that evening's game time.


That said, the notes here are good ways to help mitigate it, by giving the player another job in the combat it can help mitigate the tedium.

 

[Distracted DM]

It's bad when it only gives you a +2 save against a fairly mean spell though! I was expecting a higher Con and/or save proficiency to make a creature like that fairly immune to a certain type of spell and I was dead wrong.

It really took until I started DMing 5e to realize how many creatures actually have terrible saves to protect them from some really debilitating effects. If you're rocking a DC 15-16 save DC, only having a +2 save is pretty rough.

It's bad enough for players, but at least they can take steps to mitigate it. Like, we were up against an enemy that had a blinding aura that stunned you if you too close to it and we realized fast we did not want to fail any of those saves, so we actually got our Cleric to cast Bless instead of his usual Spirit Guardians, and that tiny bonus really made a difference. I take Resilient on all of my characters, even if it means I can't get a 20 in my important stat (which is why my level 10 Wizard still only has an 18 Int) because there are saves you just don't want to fail, like the above.

And on a long enough timeline, something is going to target one of your bad saves, since most every character has a few of them, and the DC's can eventually get to "cannot save on a 20" in some cases, and all the advantage in the world won't save you.

I've got my DM afraid of Synaptic Static now, because unless they're immune to psychic damage, there's not much his enemies can do about the "muddled thoughts" effect (as I understand it, you can't even negate it with Dispel Magic since it's an instantaneous spell? I think?) and as it's no concentration, it can stack with similar effects like Bane or a source of Disadvantage to just turn off all the low Int monsters.

He doesn't want to nerf it, since it's a 5th-level spell and he feels the power level is appropriate, it's just a bit much. I feel our game will end soon because worse spells are in the future. I could just not take spells like that, but then we encounter enemies like the above blind/stun every turn aura guy who are just that much worse, lol, so I feel like I have to keep things like that locked down if we're going to survive.

It really makes me miss 4e where the individual spells had weaker effects, rarely lasted more than a turn, but could be used more often than these big limited use nukes that are either duds or can turn an encounter inside out.

Synaptic Static is nasty, sure, but has your DM encountered Tasha's Mind Whip? A second level INT-save spell that will render encounters with purple worms and the vast majority of MM creatures pointless. 5e doesn't design its creatures to make INT saves. With the exception things like an archmage or lich, they're screwed.