Many 5e spell descriptions give the target creature additional saving throws at the end of each turn, and I'm wondering what other DMs think about this, whether you ignore it in your home-brew games, and what the game designers had in mind by including such an odd quirk in the core ruleset.
It seems to me that unless there is something to trigger the additional saving throw (such as taking damage, getting shaken or slapped by an ally, etc.) this concept undermines the idea of magic in the game. (Once the target has failed the initial saving throw, I think I'd much prefer spells that work for the specified duration unless some in-game event causes them not to work (like dispel magic) or triggers the new save; the do-overs seem arbitrary and artificial.) The 2nd-level Crown of Madness spell, as one example, tacks on this last pair of sentences: "AIso, the target can make a Wisdom saving throw at the end of each of its turns. On a success, the spell ends." My thinking here is that a player is unlikely to prepare this spell (or even select this spell) with that caveat when without the additional saving throws this could be really fun magic with interesting potential. Players will be thinking along these lines: "My spell DC is only 12, so what are the chances that this spell will ever work (60%), and if it does work, what are the chances that it will continue to work long enough to have a real impact during an encounter? I should choose a spell that's more reliable or at least doesn't give the target a do-over every turn even when it works."
Right now in my home game I'm using the saving throws as written, but I've considered addressing this by ignoring this part of the spell description or by allowing the "do-over" saving throw at the mid-point of the duration. (If the duration is 1 minute, allow the saving throw after three rounds, for example, which is at least reasonable from the caster's perspective.)
Am I alone here, or is this something others find troublesome?
Speaking as someone whose last game had us taken out by intellect devourers, "one save or suck" effects, well... suck!
Of three PCs, two got stunned and reduced to 0 INT. The INT loss can be resolved by greater restoration (of which the entire party had *one* prepared). Stunned, well, that can't be removed by anything short of 9th level magic.
A condition generally means a player is sitting at the table doing nothing. That's a bad thing.
Getting an additional save at the end of a round cheapens the spells it affects. I remember when Slow was "the most broken spell in AD&D." People would ditch Fireball for it!
Now? Why bother? (Rhetorical - I am sure there are plenty of white room theories....) And it requires concentration!
The system also cheapens the Legendary Saves ability.
The current "multiple save" system does keep characters and their foes in the action for longer but this old-schooler does not like it. This is an emotional response though; the system of save or die has been annoying me for years. The new system is much more comic-book, allowing the heroes and villains to bounce back fairly quickly after being hit by an effect; surely this is a good thing?
Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad.
For my current group, I have a house rule that if you fail to save against one of these spells, then you are treated in the same way as when dying - make or fail three saves to either break the effect or be affected for the full duration. I pinched this off some online guru - probably Matt Colville. :) It does stop the "bombard the mage - break his concentration" mentality. A little.
For my current group, I have a house rule that if you fail to save against one of these spells, then you are treated in the same way as when dying - make or fail three saves to either break the effect or be affected for the full duration. I pinched this off some online guru - probably Matt Colville. :) It does stop the "bombard the mage - break his concentration" mentality. A little.
I like this approach. I may run this by my players and see what they think. (I hate to make a rule change mid-campaign without discussion.) Thanks!
I agree that this the amount of saves targets are granted is over-generous. Its a bit hard to imagine as well, when a ghoul paralyzes someone and they shake it off and it paralyzes them again and they shake it off and it paralyzes them and they shake it off...etc into ad nauseum. I imagine it would look almost like the character is "lagging". Removing this would definitely change the value of a lot of spells but...so what? There are already overpowered spells all you might do is make some spells that have always sucked really good.
People say they dont like "save or die" and thats understandable, but I think that save or die has its place in the game as, the spells right now feel unreliable and almost video gamey in their implementation. A real paralyze spell, (hold person) or a real enchantment spell (crown of madness or confusion) from fantasy fiction and other heroic literary sources was something powerful that could last a while, not 6 seconds. The way these spells exist right now its clear that they exist for the purpose of balanced tactical combat, and not roleplaying scenarios.
So long story short...yes I think its a good idea at least worth trying for a while. Especially if you have players who are veterans of the game and would want to try something different.
Having started playing D&D in 3rd edition, the disappearance of save-or-suck effects has bothered me a bit. I think it's generally better overall, as the players will have more fun not sitting around doing nothing.
But it does remove a certain "oomph" from magic. I think it could be a fun idea to introduce a house rule that changes up how saves work against ongoing effects. I wouldn't do this for a regular, ongoing game, but it's definitely something you could try with a new campaign or adventure as a kind of hardcore mode. This also generally increases the power of spellcasters, so you'll have to be careful about how you balance that.
Another way to do this besides just reducing the number of saves or requiring more saves is to instead add residual effects that persist even after a creature or character makes their save. For example, with hold person, a character might break free from the stunned condition but could still be slowed in some way for one or more rounds.
Save or suck spells can cause players to be out of commission, but the flip side is that it gives players more fun ways to deal with problems. When a player can rely on their spell lasting a certain amount of time, they can make plans and shenanigans around it. That level of certainty that at least this guy will be disabled for a minute, that means I can do xyz., that makes the game more fun. As it stands now spells like that are really ONLY good for combat. Thats pretty much it. There no reasonable amount of time for them to be useful in almost any other scenario since the repeat saves makes it extremely unlikely that even a creature with a bad save will be under its effects for more than a couple rounds unless the PC is vastly more powerful than it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Many 5e spell descriptions give the target creature additional saving throws at the end of each turn, and I'm wondering what other DMs think about this, whether you ignore it in your home-brew games, and what the game designers had in mind by including such an odd quirk in the core ruleset.
It seems to me that unless there is something to trigger the additional saving throw (such as taking damage, getting shaken or slapped by an ally, etc.) this concept undermines the idea of magic in the game. (Once the target has failed the initial saving throw, I think I'd much prefer spells that work for the specified duration unless some in-game event causes them not to work (like dispel magic) or triggers the new save; the do-overs seem arbitrary and artificial.) The 2nd-level Crown of Madness spell, as one example, tacks on this last pair of sentences: "AIso, the target can make a Wisdom saving throw at the end of each of its turns. On a success, the spell ends." My thinking here is that a player is unlikely to prepare this spell (or even select this spell) with that caveat when without the additional saving throws this could be really fun magic with interesting potential. Players will be thinking along these lines: "My spell DC is only 12, so what are the chances that this spell will ever work (60%), and if it does work, what are the chances that it will continue to work long enough to have a real impact during an encounter? I should choose a spell that's more reliable or at least doesn't give the target a do-over every turn even when it works."
Right now in my home game I'm using the saving throws as written, but I've considered addressing this by ignoring this part of the spell description or by allowing the "do-over" saving throw at the mid-point of the duration. (If the duration is 1 minute, allow the saving throw after three rounds, for example, which is at least reasonable from the caster's perspective.)
Am I alone here, or is this something others find troublesome?
Recently returned to D&D after 20+ years.
Unapologetic.
Speaking as someone whose last game had us taken out by intellect devourers, "one save or suck" effects, well... suck!
Of three PCs, two got stunned and reduced to 0 INT. The INT loss can be resolved by greater restoration (of which the entire party had *one* prepared). Stunned, well, that can't be removed by anything short of 9th level magic.
A condition generally means a player is sitting at the table doing nothing. That's a bad thing.
Getting an additional save at the end of a round cheapens the spells it affects. I remember when Slow was "the most broken spell in AD&D." People would ditch Fireball for it!
Now? Why bother? (Rhetorical - I am sure there are plenty of white room theories....)
And it requires concentration!
The system also cheapens the Legendary Saves ability.
The current "multiple save" system does keep characters and their foes in the action for longer but this old-schooler does not like it. This is an emotional response though; the system of save or die has been annoying me for years. The new system is much more comic-book, allowing the heroes and villains to bounce back fairly quickly after being hit by an effect; surely this is a good thing?
Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad.
For my current group, I have a house rule that if you fail to save against one of these spells, then you are treated in the same way as when dying - make or fail three saves to either break the effect or be affected for the full duration. I pinched this off some online guru - probably Matt Colville. :)
It does stop the "bombard the mage - break his concentration" mentality. A little.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
I like this approach. I may run this by my players and see what they think. (I hate to make a rule change mid-campaign without discussion.) Thanks!
Recently returned to D&D after 20+ years.
Unapologetic.
I agree that this the amount of saves targets are granted is over-generous. Its a bit hard to imagine as well, when a ghoul paralyzes someone and they shake it off and it paralyzes them again and they shake it off and it paralyzes them and they shake it off...etc into ad nauseum. I imagine it would look almost like the character is "lagging". Removing this would definitely change the value of a lot of spells but...so what? There are already overpowered spells all you might do is make some spells that have always sucked really good.
People say they dont like "save or die" and thats understandable, but I think that save or die has its place in the game as, the spells right now feel unreliable and almost video gamey in their implementation. A real paralyze spell, (hold person) or a real enchantment spell (crown of madness or confusion) from fantasy fiction and other heroic literary sources was something powerful that could last a while, not 6 seconds. The way these spells exist right now its clear that they exist for the purpose of balanced tactical combat, and not roleplaying scenarios.
So long story short...yes I think its a good idea at least worth trying for a while. Especially if you have players who are veterans of the game and would want to try something different.
Having started playing D&D in 3rd edition, the disappearance of save-or-suck effects has bothered me a bit. I think it's generally better overall, as the players will have more fun not sitting around doing nothing.
But it does remove a certain "oomph" from magic. I think it could be a fun idea to introduce a house rule that changes up how saves work against ongoing effects. I wouldn't do this for a regular, ongoing game, but it's definitely something you could try with a new campaign or adventure as a kind of hardcore mode. This also generally increases the power of spellcasters, so you'll have to be careful about how you balance that.
Another way to do this besides just reducing the number of saves or requiring more saves is to instead add residual effects that persist even after a creature or character makes their save. For example, with hold person, a character might break free from the stunned condition but could still be slowed in some way for one or more rounds.
Thanks! I appreciate all the feedback.
Recently returned to D&D after 20+ years.
Unapologetic.
Save or suck spells can cause players to be out of commission, but the flip side is that it gives players more fun ways to deal with problems. When a player can rely on their spell lasting a certain amount of time, they can make plans and shenanigans around it. That level of certainty that at least this guy will be disabled for a minute, that means I can do xyz., that makes the game more fun. As it stands now spells like that are really ONLY good for combat. Thats pretty much it. There no reasonable amount of time for them to be useful in almost any other scenario since the repeat saves makes it extremely unlikely that even a creature with a bad save will be under its effects for more than a couple rounds unless the PC is vastly more powerful than it.