barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (07/12/85)
I'd like to go on record as intensely disliking No Saving Throw spells. This particularly applies to No Saving Throw and You Die spells. I view the saving throw as the victim's chance of pulling off a minor protective magic (something like crossing one's fingers and saying "Avert!). Anyone can do it; mages have a MUCH better chance of doing it right. Dwarves are good at it but lousy at normal offensive magic. But whatever you think a saving throw is, it feels *wrong* for someone to be able to significantly affect a victim on a 100% chance basis. No roll to hit, no chance of dodging/parrying: just DOOM! The problem is that D&D saving throws get too easy as you go up levels. In LANDS OF ADVENTURE, the saving throw is based on your PRUDENCE or CONSTITUTION (your choice of which you want to use; a group can rely on one person's PRU) affected by the Intensity of the Spell AND by the number of Energy Points the victim uses to "fight off" the spell. You could borrow a trick from this and give people a chance of fighting off No Sving Throw D&D spells: say, 10% per HP given up. As for Alignment Changing: I used to let tempter types (like succubi, vampires) change alignment gradually (Good to Neutral took three melee rounds, Neutral to Evil another three melee rounds; you could delay the change each time you saved). Changing the person back could be done by Neutralize Curse. I think I know what the GM was getting at, though. In his case, I might have instead offered the character a choice: you can either go to Evil and be ONE LEVEL HIGHER or stay the level and alignment you are. I've had a lot of fun with offering people tempting choices. Much more than I'd get from NO Saving Throw spells or You Can't Take It Off magic items. Instead I offer Rings of +3 Protection to anyone who betrayed a friend to death; a cloak embroidered with red drops that makes you a Vampire of Your Level +4 -- which randomly strikes someone (party or enemy) the first time on a run it sees blood, etc. SAnd then watch the players squirm in agony. --Lee Gold
jims@hcrvax.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) (07/17/85)
> I'd like to go on record as intensely disliking No Saving Throw spells. > This particularly applies to No Saving Throw and You Die spells. I view > the saving throw as the victim's chance of pulling off a minor protective > magic (something like crossing one's fingers and saying "Avert!). Anyone > can do it; mages have a MUCH better chance of doing it right. Dwarves > are good at it but lousy at normal offensive magic. > > But whatever you think a saving throw is, it feels *wrong* for someone to > be able to significantly affect a victim on a 100% chance basis. No roll > to hit, no chance of dodging/parrying: just DOOM! Well, you're on record. I, however, like No Saving Throw spells. Especially when going against monsters with magic resistance. Magic Resistance is, I feel, grossly unfair. Take two parties, equal in every way except for MR, and the MR party will win, more often than not. So those spells with NST are needed. Instead of two rolls (one for MR, the other the ST), the monster only gets one. And because high level monsters get high level ST's, you need something to stop them. As for it feeling wrong to have a 100% chance to kill, think of modern warfare. There are alot of weapons (today) with 100% chance to kill. If your DM is being a bastard, and using these spells to kill the party (for example, "Oh, you walked into a sphere of annihallation" (sp)), then kill the DM. > The problem is that D&D saving throws get too easy as you go up levels. No, the problem is monster's ST's go up too fast, and unrealistically. Nasty monsters, with lots of hit die, and little intelligence save better that intelligent MU's with few hit die, even though the MU's have seen/used the spell several times ! > --Lee Gold Jim Sullivan <--- victim of too many all weekend fantasy games
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (07/25/85)
In article <1885@hcrvax.UUCP> jims@hcrvax.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) writes: >> I'd like to go on record as intensely disliking No Saving Throw spells. >> >> But whatever you think a saving throw is, it feels *wrong* for someone to >> be able to significantly affect a victim on a 100% chance basis. > >Well, you're on record. I, however, like No Saving Throw spells. Especially >when going against monsters with magic resistance. Magic Resistance is, >I feel, grossly unfair. Take two parties, equal in every way except for >MR, and the MR party will win, more often than not. So those spells with >NST are needed. Instead of two rolls (one for MR, the other the ST), the >monster only gets one. And because high level monsters get high level ST's, >you need something to stop them. All you are saying is that MR is an advantage for those who have it. Of course it's an advantage. But no saving throw spells are much worse. Yes, they balance things a bit against monsters with MR. But they unbalance things against monsters without MR. Also, I have little respect for a gamesmaster who lets the players use a weapon (no ST spells) which is available to the monsters, but does not use it against the players. In other words, when evaluating a spell, don't just ask "would I like to be able to use this spell?" Also ask "Can I tolerate this spell being used against me?" By the way, comparing a spell against sleep to measure its usefulness is about like comparing a weapon against an atomic bomb. I don't think any game I have run in has used sleep with its book definition; certainly not for very long.