Does part of if have to do with whether the target gets to make saving throws each round until they make the save (like Hold Person), vs if the target fails the saving throw, that's it for the entire duration and there aren't any more saving throws in subsequent rounds (like Polymorph, sucks for fail because the effect isn't ending anytime soon)?
Or does it just mean spells that have a really bad effect, if the creature fails its save (just sucks to fail)? Or does it have to do with full damage, or nothing, no half damage (maybe sucks for the caster if the spell fails)? Something else?
Effect that cause save or suck typically means one roll will take you out of action for extended time if not permanent, such as paralyze, petrify, unconscious, death etc...
For example, i don't consider save or suck an effect that could paralyze you for 1 round, or for which you can save at the end of your turn turn, but i'd consider it one if it lasted 1+ minute, hour, day etc .
D&D has slowly stirred away from crippling effects that aren't easily or rapidly undone though.
IMO "save or suck" are spells / abilities that make an enemy completely incapable of acting effectively / dealing damage for at least 1 round, thus have the ability to completely cripple boss enemies that rely on legendary actions or super powerful abilities - e.g. a dragon is a perfect example of this type of enemy. Usually they require a single saving throw (but not always - IMO wall of force and forcecage fall into save-or-suck despite not giving a saving throw), and usually they have at least some ability to last more than 1 round (but not always - IMO Stunning Strike is save-or-suck because it can be easily repeated turn after turn to maintain it despite each failure lasting only 1 round). I personally like to think about it more as "if this ability is used effectively, the combat is instantly over, because the enemies are so disadvantaged by the effect.
Reason i believe save or suck is a single saving throw failure to endure a crippling effect is beacuse its a qualifier that exist way before 5E, often taking reference to some AD&D effects where repeatable save was no common thing.
Save or Suck was at least originally used to express the older style of D&D saving throws when a single roll would immediately remove you from combat regardless of hit points. It comes from the fact that there was at that time a saving throw verses death from certain effects, usually referred to as Save or Die.
Failing a saving throw against a fireball and then dying wasn't really regarded as Save or Suck because it was simply damage. Failing a saving throw against paralization was a Save or Suck because after one fail you were completely out of the fight, barring someone else casting a spell on you to cancel it.
People may have expanded the definition a bit since then, but this is sort of the origin at least.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Does part of if have to do with whether the target gets to make saving throws each round until they make the save (like Hold Person), vs if the target fails the saving throw, that's it for the entire duration and there aren't any more saving throws in subsequent rounds (like Polymorph, sucks for fail because the effect isn't ending anytime soon)?
Or does it just mean spells that have a really bad effect, if the creature fails its save (just sucks to fail)? Or does it have to do with full damage, or nothing, no half damage (maybe sucks for the caster if the spell fails)? Something else?
Effect that cause save or suck typically means one roll will take you out of action for extended time if not permanent, such as paralyze, petrify, unconscious, death etc...
For example, i don't consider save or suck an effect that could paralyze you for 1 round, or for which you can save at the end of your turn turn, but i'd consider it one if it lasted 1+ minute, hour, day etc .
D&D has slowly stirred away from crippling effects that aren't easily or rapidly undone though.
IMO "save or suck" are spells / abilities that make an enemy completely incapable of acting effectively / dealing damage for at least 1 round, thus have the ability to completely cripple boss enemies that rely on legendary actions or super powerful abilities - e.g. a dragon is a perfect example of this type of enemy. Usually they require a single saving throw (but not always - IMO wall of force and forcecage fall into save-or-suck despite not giving a saving throw), and usually they have at least some ability to last more than 1 round (but not always - IMO Stunning Strike is save-or-suck because it can be easily repeated turn after turn to maintain it despite each failure lasting only 1 round). I personally like to think about it more as "if this ability is used effectively, the combat is instantly over, because the enemies are so disadvantaged by the effect.
Reason i believe save or suck is a single saving throw failure to endure a crippling effect is beacuse its a qualifier that exist way before 5E, often taking reference to some AD&D effects where repeatable save was no common thing.
Save or Suck was at least originally used to express the older style of D&D saving throws when a single roll would immediately remove you from combat regardless of hit points. It comes from the fact that there was at that time a saving throw verses death from certain effects, usually referred to as Save or Die.
Failing a saving throw against a fireball and then dying wasn't really regarded as Save or Suck because it was simply damage. Failing a saving throw against paralization was a Save or Suck because after one fail you were completely out of the fight, barring someone else casting a spell on you to cancel it.
People may have expanded the definition a bit since then, but this is sort of the origin at least.