So called save or suck spells

[bestialwarlust]

Now I don't really consider myself a grognard having started playing D&D in the early 80's as a kid then moving onto 1E/2E. I tried running 3.x versions and really didn't care for it and as for 4e well let's just say I wouldn't even bother after playing two or three sessions with it.

I owned OD&D for a while but hadn't started trying it out until last year and really took a strong liking to it. I pretty much prefer older versions and the OSR stuff and have taken the view that I've seen gronan a.k.a old geezer that OD&D are the primary rules and all other editions are just different house rule takes on the game.

Which brings me to the phrase "save or suck" which is what I've seen the save or die referred to on other boards. So I understand that it can suck losing a character to a saving throw. But having plunged back into the old rules and really reading from a different mind set the way I understand it is the save for the most part represents luck.

Take the disintegrate spell it's a save or die spell. To me the giving the saving throw says "this spell will kill you automatically, but since your a "hero" as a non red shirt I'll give you a second chance to live". The same would apply to poisons or any other affect. The " this will kill you but I'll give you a chance to live". And of course as you level up you become more "heroic" the fates tend to favor you more. This is represented by your saves becoming easier to make.

So where other game systems have hero points or fate points that allow a re roll D&D used the saving throw to represent the same thing. So am I off here in my understanding does it seem to represent that?

[coffee]

That is my understanding, yes.

A friend of mine got to play in a Dave Arneson game for one of those "Worldwide D&D Day" things, and he said that Dave would give you a saving throw if you could come up with a reason for it. I.e,; you don't automatically get that chance, but if you can explain why you should, you do.

[Finarvyn]

I'm not familar with "save or suck" but instead usually hear "save or die." Same final result, however.

I think you have correctly identified the situation. In miniatures battles each figure was typically a basic soldier and if he got hit he would be wiped out, but as figures became CHARACTERS then suddenly their value increased and so gamers looked for ways to keep them alive longer. Thus the "saving throw" to give the character a chance to walk away from nearly certain doom.

An interesting observation to the Saving Throw is that it's defensive, whereas most rolls in OD&D are attack rolls. Makes you wonder why G&A didn't choose to make attack rolls for spells instead of defensive rolls.

[Chainsaw]

Aug 24, 2012 6:52:48 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

Which brings me to the phrase "save or suck" which is what I've seen the save or die referred to on other boards.

I have a few words for those folks...

[jasmith]

I could be mistaken, but I believe "save or suck," as generally used, also encompasses things like the effects of "Hold Person," "Petrification," etc.

As in make a Save or your PC is going to suck for the immediate or foreseeable future.

It's seems to be used mostly by people who take umbrage at the idea of failing a save and having to deal with the consequences.

Whatever.

[Chainsaw]

In our games, a saving throw versus death (and the like) typically only follows actions that the players immediately realize were ill-considered ("I should have known.. the clues were all there"), so they're grateful to have any chance at all. Nevertheless, I am also fairly lenient when it comes to giving save bonuses for creative ideas that show people are engaged.

If some unfair or idiot referee creates a save vs death situation with no clues, then, like I said above, he's doing it wrong. If the clues are all there and the players whine about triggering the save, then maybe they need to play Candyland or watch Barney instead.

[bestialwarlust]

Aug 25, 2012 10:13:03 GMT -6 jasmith said:

I could be mistaken, but I believe "save or suck," as generally used, also encompasses things like the effects of "Hold Person," "Petrification," etc.

As in make a Save or your PC is going to suck for the immediate or foreseeable future.

It's seems to be used mostly by people who take umbrage at the idea of failing a save and having to deal with the consequences.

Whatever.

I agree I like the element of danger.

[bestialwarlust]

Aug 25, 2012 10:44:37 GMT -6 Chainsaw said:

In our games, a saving throw versus death (and the like) typically only follows actions that the players immediately realize were ill-considered ("I should have known.. the clues were all there"), so they're grateful to have any chance at all. Nevertheless, I am also fairly lenient when it comes to giving save bonuses for creative ideas that show people are engaged.

If some unfair or idiot referee creates a save vs death situation with no clues, then, like I said above, he's doing it wrong. If the clues are all there and the players whine about triggering the save, then maybe they need to play Candyland or watch Barney instead.

I agree with this too. I think the biggest issue has been ther few jack ass DM's that ruin the bunch. I've always given some clues and my group has never complained. We've even had some memorble deaths.

Even with the spells most can be recovered from given resources. Though disinigrate is one of the harder ones to come back from.

[zeraser]

I agree I like the element of danger.

To advocate briefly for the devil:

Leaving aside the "save or die" phenomenon to speak only about "save or suck" - i.e., make a saving throw or suffer some kind of temporary debilitating effect - the "danger" is twofold: first, the danger to the character (possibly serious, possibly negligible); second, the danger that the player is now in a position of watching a bunch of people play the game he or she bought a bunch of dice and got in his or her car to go to an FLGS or someone's house to play instead of playing the game him- or herself.

What "sucks" in a "save or suck" situation is that the player has nothing to do while the character is under a Hold Person or Sleep enchantment. You don't have to be a Candyland enthusiast to be irritated by a game mechanic that essentially mandates a time-out. After all, we all come to the table because we want to play, not because we want a bad decision (and in some cases not even that!) to prevent us from playing.

[Deleted]

I guess the balancing point would be your referee, Zeraser. If the ref makes sure you have ample warning before doing something rash, then the "time out" (as you aptly put it) would serve as real learning moment.

I became convinced, once upon a time, that a referee was hiding something valuable in a place that gave every indication of being very dangerous. My fighter, who had some exceptional stats, had a great deal of time to ponder his folly during the 100' drop to the bottom of the pit he very suddenly came upon. The referee wrote plenty of omens and portents into the description, but I ignored them.

I had to wait to rejoin the party (with a new PC, natch) at a point where it was appropriate. I didn't take it as a bad thing, I was able to thump my head and laugh "what was I thinking." The good-natured razzing I took from the other party members was enjoyable, too.

In short, I learned a lesson and l had fun. It is difficult for me to view that as a negative experience. Now mind you ... if it had been a "gotcha!" type trap that came out of nowhere? I would have felt a bit peeved at how it turned out.

[zeraser]

Fair enough: As long as you had fun, I guess there's no need to speculate further.

(I wrote a much longer post in which I did indeed speculate further, but then I deleted it, putting my money where my mouth is!)

[kenmeister]

I always have my players run 2+ characters each, so that if one character is held, killed, or otherwise taken out of the action, they still have another to play.

Plus let's not forget that in the save or suck version, your allies can help alleviate the condition.

[Necropraxis]

Aug 26, 2012 16:51:12 GMT -6 kenmeister said:

I always have my players run 2+ characters each, so that if one character is held, killed, or otherwise taken out of the action, they still have another to play.

This is one of the reasons I encourage the use of retainers.

[Necropraxis]

Incidentally, I always thought the "save or suck" thing was about the other side of the table. That is, people would complain about monsters saving against player spells, making the PC spell "suck". I kind of missed the 3E years, which is where I gather this phrase came from, so I might be getting it wrong.

And in any case, I love the saving throw mechanic more than just about anything else in D&D:

untimately.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-i-love-saving-throws.html

[talysman]

I'm sure zeraser's explanation of why people hate "save or suck" situations, but I still don't "get" it. So we can't have paralysis, stun, umconsciousness, surprise, entanglement from spiderwebs, petrifaction, sleep spells, or death in the game, because that would cause someone to lose a turn?

[zeraser]

You certainly can - but I think that the loss of a turn goes a long way to explain why "save or suck" is unpopular.

If this poses a problem at your table - which will depend, of course, on your players - there are solutions: As has already been suggested, you could let each of them play several characters. You could modify the saving throw system such that a slept or held character can make a roll each turn to wake up rather than blowing the save and being out until further notice.

Look, we all know that the stakes of a decision are what give it weight; if there were no consequences for a misstep, surely the game would be much less fun to play. But when an in-game consequence (like falling asleep or walking into a spiderweb or whatever) is articulated to the real-world consequence of not being able to play the game, that can be a pretty frustrating circumstance, and one that (in my experience) often leads to diminished attention from the player in question. I think the game is best when everybody is "in;" "save or suck" effects that remove a character from play, even temporarily, create a social problem.

...not an insurmountable one, of course, and maybe not even a serious one if your players are all extremely serious, focused people. Sometimes mine are not.

[Deleted]

Two things.

First, I think PART of the problem is how long combat takes in later editions. In my NYC OD&D game, I don't think a single combat went over five minutes, including things like three ghouls or a 4th level cleric with 2 retainers and 3 hobgoblins. If you're out of combat for 5 minutes it's not too bad. If you're out of combat for the rest of a 45 minute combat, yeah, that can suck.

Second, at the risk of sounding like an irascible, flatulent old grognard (Oh wait... I AM!), a sizeable contingent of players these days have a d**n strong sense of entitlement. They basically want to win all the time, and if anything bad happens to their character they are "DEPROTAGONIZED!!!1!" and that's bad.

[Deleted]

Aug 26, 2012 13:29:05 GMT -6 zeraser said:

I wrote a much longer post in which I did indeed speculate further, but then I...

LOL! Just remember: speculating further is what forums are all about!

[geoffrey]

In my experience, old-school D&D is fun both WITH save-or-die and save-or-suck effects, and WITHOUT. I don't think either their presence or absence is necessary to a great D&D game.

[zeraser]

Totally. Let me disclaim that as a player, save or die/suck effects don't really faze me - and why should they? My favorite kind of D&D is the kind where the most time-consuming part of character creation is rolling on the B/X Headgear chart. To me, that's one of the coolest things about old-style D&D; the system is so light (and the authority of the DM so sweeping) that the relationship between in-game time and table time can be as fluid as necessary.

[Deleted]

Well put, Geoff! It's a game, the aim is to have fun! If you aren't having fun you should either change the game or change games.

[jonathan]

Save or Die (or Save or Suck) spells are mostly a bugaboo in 3.X, especially compared to earlier editions, due to saving throws not scaling well at higher levels and it being easier for spellcasters to do their thing without getting disrupted due to the Concentration skill. Additionally, most monsters have a lot more HP than than their earlier counterparts, making direct damage spells relatively weaker - Fireball and Lightning Bolt are some of the weakest 3rd level spells in 3.X.

[exploderwizard]

Aug 27, 2012 11:24:13 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Two things.

First, I think PART of the problem is how long combat takes in later editions. In my NYC OD&D game, I don't think a single combat went over five minutes, including things like three ghouls or a 4th level cleric with 2 retainers and 3 hobgoblins. If you're out of combat for 5 minutes it's not too bad. If you're out of combat for the rest of a 45 minute combat, yeah, that can suck.

Second, at the risk of sounding like an irascible, flatulent old grognard (Oh wait... I AM!), a sizeable contingent of players these days have a d**n strong sense of entitlement. They basically want to win all the time, and if anything bad happens to their character they are "DEPROTAGONIZED!!!1!" and that's bad.

Another thing that adds to the unthinkable horror of getting knocked out of action is the difficulty and time required to generate a new character and keep playing.

If it takes hours sitting around with a pile of splatbooks just to make a new dude then losing one is too horrible to contemplate.

Screw that noise. Just roll yer stats choose a class, buy stuff and get to playing.

[zeraser]

"Screw that noise" indeed, and yet: Character generation replete with options and possibilities remains an appealing option for lots of gamers. For them, I think, generating a character is playing - and moreover, it's a kind of playing they can do away from the table, by themselves. I wonder if it isn't a symptom of the difficulties one faces in coordinating a bunch of busy people's schedules? Certainly I sympathize with players who yearn for a way to "play D&D" without herding a bunch of cats every week.