RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
So I guess playing something like a fighter with a wisdom penalty is right out for you then?
How is it any different than playing a bad Fort caster and getting hit by a one shot SoS/SoD effect? Or a bad Ref character that gets hit with a pit spell? In any of those situations the party is faced with the choice to use actions and resources to undo the effect or to just let it be until after the battle.
Now I do play in groups that lets the player retain some control when their character is charmed or dominated - you still have to do what the spell tells you, but you get to still describe your actions and roll your own dice, that sort of thing.
But overall, having played an 8 Wis fighter all the way through Carrion Crown, it really wasn't that bad. But the GM for that game doesn't metagame our character classes - I did have a prominent good holy symbol so maybe bad guys assumed I was a paladin? Either way I didn't feel unduly targeted by Will saves unless we had been scryed upon beforehand.
Btw I also roleplay low wisdom by making less than optimal tactical decisions and not thinking through the consequences of my actions.
Well... If it's a class with a bad will save, no focus on Wisdom and no class feature to make up for it, I'll probably not play it at all in any game that I expect to go beyond 9th level or so. At least not without some house-rules. At very least, some sort of 3.5/homebrew feat should be allowed.
Failing will saves is even more devastating than failing Fort. And dangerous Will saves are very freaking common. It's not fun to be easily neutralized half the time.
I think that bad Will save PCs can probably do OK in a typical published adventure like an AP. I mean, sure, they'll still fail some Will saves and end up useless or counterproductive from time to time, but it won't happen over and over time after time. The DM also won't start reaching for Will saves whenever he or she wants to neutralize/embarrass/kill the PC in question.
I get the impression that there are more debilitating Will save based effects than Fort save based effects and more of them are AoE so that the whole party gets hit and the Fighter starts babbling incoherently. That said, Confusion is possibly our favorite Will save to fail in my groups since it can result in something funny and you at least have a chance to act normally. We've also house ruled that Fear gives you a new save each round to reduce the effect to shaken.
Another part of the problem is probably that Dexterity and Constitution both boost combat stats which most players value while Wisdom is a rather boring stat for somebody like a Fighter or Rogue. Classes like this also often need to rely on outside help to deal with the effects of Will saves. This could be a synergy in some ways since the folks more likely to succeed on the saving throw are also more likely to have the spell which fixes the problem. I've seen many, many parties which don't seem to memorize stuff like Protection from Evil though.
Eh, the spread between a low and high will save doesn't really become significant until level 10+. At level 10, assuming similar gear and wisdom, the spread between fighter and wizard will saves grows to a massive 4 points, which certainly isn't game breaking. The difference between high and low will saves is nothing compared to the difference between non-wisdom based classes and wisdom based classes or classes with paladin type save bonuses.
True (which is why is specified "beyond 9th level)... But casters have the advantage of having class features (spells) to boost their saves (or not even needing to make them in the first place), usually being less MAD and/or not having to spend money on armor and weapons, which allows them to invest more heavily in save-boosting gear.
e.g.:
Rangers, for example, are mostly okay. Wis is important for them, and the fact that they already have 2 good saves means they can afford to commit more resources to their Will.
Barbarians and Bloodragers have access to stuff such as Superstition and Clear Mind. Which basically gives them a good Will save.
Fighters... Can take Iron Will, I guess... I'd never dump Wis with them, though.
Rogues, OTOH... Usually want good Int and/or Cha for character concept, but mechanically, those are the least useful attributes for them. They also have poor Fort, so they have to invest a lot of gold just to make their saves mediocre. And they have no class features that boost their saves in any significant way.
- - -
Poor saves (with no class features to compensate) are one of the few things that can make me completely ignore a class. Saves are too dangerous and too common. Having weak saves is not just a minor problem, it's a crippling weakness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I build a character in a class with bad will saves, I look for a trait that will either bump will (such as indomitable faith) or one that gives a bonus vs. one of the components (fear, mind effecting, etc). Then one of the 1st magic items I get is a +1 cloak of resistance.
Also you can try playing a race with built in abilities (like an elf).
After that I just try to think positive thoughts whenever I role a will save.
Morag
BTW: Most of the classes I play have low will saves so I do spend a lot of time thinking positive thoughts.
|
|
I'll make sure to get an item that allows a reroll on a failed save or if I don't need the slot, the seducer's bane bracelet are a steal for 9900 gp...+5 resistance bonus to will save and best part...you can fake that you under the effect of the enchantment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know how people play characters without good [a thing]. About half of the time you end up [something] and waiting for [anything].
Your complaint can be made for a bunch of things in the game. A bad fort save or lack of ac/hit points can leave you flat out dead. A bad skill check could negate an entire portion of the campaign. A bad reflex save and you've fallen somewhere and unable to contribute. A bad CMB or CMD and you're a monster's plaything.
Bad will saves are but one of many potential vulnerabilities. Your focus on it is just a testament to your group's or GM's playstyle.
Your complaint can be made for a bunch of things in the game.
Some more than others, though:
A bad fort save or lack of ac/hit points can leave you flat out dead.
True. I've seen this happen a number of times.
A bad skill check could negate an entire portion of the campaign.
I've never seen this happen.
A bad reflex save and you've fallen somewhere and unable to contribute.
I've hardly seen this happen - standing up is one of the easier actions in game. It's a swift action if someone's cast Blessings of Fervour on you.
A bad CMB or CMD and you're a monster's plaything.
Most monsters who use grab / swallow attacks have such high CMB that it's almost impossible to resist even if you've got a decent CMD.
Like I play any other character.
Making Will saves to avoid compulsions and dominations doesn't happen every combat in the games I play. When it does happen, we deal with it. Hell, you have to be prepared for the possibility that you'll fail on your best saves. We houserule in our group 4th editions use of either/or two stats for your saves. (Str/Con for Fort, Int/Dex for Ref, and Wis/Cha for Will.) Despite this, my Oracle (High Will and use Cha for bonus) still has an unfortunate tendancy to fail his will saves. (Technically, he's still dominated in the current game, but the wizard who did it ran away, and the rest of the group didn't even know about it, and couldn't do anything when they did. So far, nothing has happened with it, cross fingers.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dying can be better than failing a Will save sometimes, perhaps especially in games which use Hero Points. A failed Will save can also easily lead to a TPK in a lot of cases. Few Fort or Reflex saves can turn you against your party, and few monsters are as deadly as PCs.
I also think a lot of DMs might tend to hold back on stuff which is absolutely and instantly deadly while they're happy to spam Will saves.
Poor Reflex saves aren't uncommon, but the results of failure are usually just some extra damage. That damage can often be avoided with spells, and the folks who cast those spells tend to have low Reflex saves.
Low touch AC is a very common weakness and can be exploited to deadly effect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I guess playing something like a fighter with a wisdom penalty is right out for you then?
How is it any different than playing a bad Fort caster and getting hit by a one shot SoS/SoD effect? Or a bad Ref character that gets hit with a pit spell? In any of those situations the party is faced with the choice to use actions and resources to undo the effect or to just let it be until after the battle.
I think the main difference is that a dominated or confused character has a high chance of hurting other party members. Character in a pit is in a pit by themselves. A dominated character is a danger to others.
My husband and I played a teamwork pair of Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian two-weapon fighters. Even with a 14 wisdom and save-boosting magic, my character had a pitiful 7 will save at 12th level (and mine was the higher of the two). Once, when we knew we were facing vampires, we both balked and told the party, "Um...you probably don't want us going in these without some kind of protection from evil--you do not want the twin blade cuisinarts getting dominated."
Now I do play in groups that lets the player retain some control when their character is charmed or dominated - you still have to do what the spell tells you, but you get to still describe your actions and roll your own dice, that sort of thing.
That's how I've seen it done, too, and I really like it that way.
The character I mentioned above once got dominated and told to "stop her partner from getting close to the bad guy". So she dropped her weapons and--um--"grappled" him.
Your complaint can be made for a bunch of things in the game.Some more than others, though:
A bad fort save or lack of ac/hit points can leave you flat out dead.True. I've seen this happen a number of times.
A bad skill check could negate an entire portion of the campaign.I've never seen this happen.
A bad reflex save and you've fallen somewhere and unable to contribute.I've hardly seen this happen - standing up is one of the easier actions in game. It's a swift action if someone's cast Blessings of Fervour on you.
A bad CMB or CMD and you're a monster's plaything.Most monsters who use grab / swallow attacks have such high CMB that it's almost impossible to resist even if you've got a decent CMD.
The skill thing would certainly be a sign of bad or inexperienced GMing. For example, failing a survival check and completely losing the trail of the villian the group is following.
As for falling, I was more refering to falling down a hole or off a cliff, rather than falling on your butt.
Reflex is not as bad because it's usually only damage, to which you have a second layer of defense (hp... plus stuff like Energy Resistance).
Admittedly, failing a Reflex save can be deadly (liek against an enemy using Dazing Spell)... But it's not nearly as common as bad Fort and Will. Having a weak Fort save is pretty bad too, but there are more SoL will saves than Fort... Besides all character benefit from and can afford to get at least a 12 in Con. The same can't be said about Wis. Some classes are too MAD to afford a good Wis score and/or a Wis-enhancing headband.
CMB and CMD is usually not that bad because at least you have strategies to avoid being grappled/tripped... There isn't much you can do to avoid being targeted by a spell. And you can even full-attack while grappled/prone.
The consequences for failing a skill check are not as dire as the consequences of failing a save. I've never seen a failed skill check cause a TPK. (I also never play characters who don't have at least 4 skill points per level... If I'm using a class 2 skill point per level, then it must at very least reasonably allow me to get 4 skill points somehow, this might be as easy as being human and using my favored class bonus, although that not always possible or desirable).
I'm playing a tiefling silver draconic bloodrager with 7 for wisdom. I invest a lot of traits such as indomitable faith and twilight zeal for him. He believes what in his friends, he will not stop if his friends are in dangers. And he feels more comfortable in the dark. Which was enough to cancel out my -2 on will. Then I took iron will to help out a bit. Still I got pretty weak will saves. Even is I bloodrage, it still didn't help much. However, it's good story as my character keep showing how much struggle he has inside his mind and there are so much pain in him.
I once played a fighter in 3.5 that had a +4 will save at level 13 with a cloak of resistance (flaw, drawbacks, dump stats)
The GM targeted it some, but eventually he got bored doing that/didn't want to have me blender the party.
In general, the will save effects are really lame, so that GM avoided them. My current ones don't and we berate people who dare to write up a high level character will full WBL and no cloak of resistance.
We nerf the living crap out of anything that amounts to 'save or die', because they suck.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love having a low will save PC. Lose a fort save, you die. Lose a reflex save, you die in flames or are entangled. Lose a will save and you're fine and get to duel your fellow players with no social consequences. What's not to like?
@Thread Question
Generally speaking, I simply don't play bad will save characters.
If I play a class with a poor will save progression I take steps to make sure I have at the very least an average Will save by investing resources in it - Iron Will, springing for an extra +1 on my Cloak of Resistance, buying a Wisdom of 12-14 etc.
Failing a reflex save means you take some damage, failing a fortitude save means you die, failing a will save means you kill someone else.
You're like a dog with a bone.
|
I don't know how people play characters without good will saves. I really just don't I've done it before and about half of the time you end up failing a will save and waiting for combat to end.
I'm not talking about alleged bad will saves (Looking at you superstitious) I'm talking about honest to god bad will saves like fighters, slayers, and such.
Do you invest in iron will?
Is there another magic item which buffs your will save beyond the cloak/stone?
Do you pump wisdom?
I know too many DM's that see power only as a measure of HP and damage output. I easily play low-Will Save chars in their games because they think a 'challenge' is lots of natural attacks and big damage mods.
I personally hate low Will saves still, but if I really want to try out a certain class - like when the Slayer came out - I wait for those games confident my odds of being dominated are slim-to-nill.
I don't know how people play characters without good will saves. I really just don't I've done it before and about half of the time you end up failing a will save and waiting for combat to end.
I'm not talking about alleged bad will saves (Looking at you superstitious) I'm talking about honest to god bad will saves like fighters, slayers, and such.
Do you invest in iron will?
Is there another magic item which buffs your will save beyond the cloak/stone?
Do you pump wisdom?
Classes with a poor will save can still get decent will saves if they dont ignore it, just like classes such as a wizard can get decent con scores.
I tend to pick up Iron will.
I also don't dump wisdom below 12. This is also useful for perception.
Invest in cloaks of resistance and headbands of wisdom
If you are a dwarf then pick up the steel soul feat.
That normally keeps you relatively safe against most enemies unless the GM modifies them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to agree that having a low will save was unplayable. Then I played the game, looked at spells and came to the realization that will is the least necessary save.
Failing a fortitude save could result in ability damage, permanent blindness, turning to stone, disintegration or instant death.
Failing a reflex save usually results in taking damage. Take enough of this and you die.
Failing a will save mostly results in a temporary annoyances, debuffs that go away completely after a set duration, not seeing through an illusion, losing your turn. The few really bad effects (compulsions) are all prevented by one common first level spell. If you're playing the game all by yourself, will saves will kill you, but it's a team game, so getting put to sleep just means your buddy loses their turn waking you up. All told, will are the least deadly saves to fail.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used to agree that having a low will save was unplayable. Then I played the game, looked at spells and came to the realization that will is the least necessary save.
Failing a fortitude save could result in ability damage, permanent blindness, turning to stone, disintegration or instant death.
Failing a reflex save usually results in taking damage. Take enough of this and you die.
Failing a will save mostly results in a temporary annoyances, debuffs that go away completely after a set duration, not seeing through an illusion, losing your turn. The few really bad effects (compulsions) are all prevented by one common first level spell. If you're playing the game all by yourself, will saves will kill you, but it's a team game, so getting put to sleep just means your buddy loses their turn waking you up. All told, will are the least deadly saves to fail.
Do you often win fights after two players' turns are wasted?
Undone, your arguments are making a lot of assumptions, such as on the PC's level, their available resources, and the GM's style.
I'm having a hard time believing that people's strategies are so delicate and yet immutable that one or two wasted turns spells TPK.
Yes, a failed will save is bad, but that's why you have backup plans. No matter how high your bonus, you could always roll a 1.
As well, the will effects tend to have issues of their own. A charm effect makes you see the caster as a trusted friend, yes, but it says nothing about the caster's allies. You won't attack your friends lethally, but any hostile actions by the caster's friends breaks the spell, or gives a +5 bonus on the save. Dominate, similarly, forces a second save with a +2 if they take an action against their nature, which I assume attacking allies would fall under, unless you're a real selfish sort. Phantasmal Killer has two saves.
So while I don't agree that Will saves are the least dangerous, I don't agree they're the campaign-ending threat people are making them out to be. They're a threat to be adapted to, like any other. Keep dispels and counter-dominates ready.
I'm having a hard time believing that people's strategies are so delicate and yet immutable that one or two wasted turns spells TPK.
Sure, if you were never matched up against an opponent that actually threatened the party, I guess it doesn't matter if half of them don't even take their turns.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I'm having a hard time believing that people's strategies are so delicate and yet immutable that one or two wasted turns spells TPK.Sure, if you were never matched up against an opponent that actually threatened the party, I guess it doesn't matter if half of them don't even take their turns.
Considering the bad guy often used a turn to produce the Will save effect, it effectively means that the bad guy spent one turn to use up 1-2 PC turns, depending on whether the charmed/dominated/held/afraid guy goes before or after the person who fixes it. Not really a devastatingly powerful trade, tbh.
An oracle with protection from evil, remove fear, calm emotions, and dispel magic can pretty easily undo most Will save effects at a whim. Not every party has one, obviously, but a party that does can choose not to concentrate on Will saves and use those resources elsewhere pretty reliably.
Teamwork is more powerful than trying to be individual bastions of awesome.
I'm having a hard time believing that people's strategies are so delicate and yet immutable that one or two wasted turns spells TPK.Sure, if you were never matched up against an opponent that actually threatened the party, I guess it doesn't matter if half of them don't even take their turns.Considering the bad guy often used a turn to produce the Will save effect, it effectively means that the bad guy spent one turn to use up 1-2 PC turns, depending on whether the charmed/dominated/held/afraid guy goes before or after the person who fixes it. Not really a devastatingly powerful trade, tbh.
An oracle with protection from evil, remove fear, calm emotions, and dispel magic can pretty easily undo most Will save effects at a whim. Not every party has one, obviously, but a party that does can choose not to concentrate on Will saves and use those resources elsewhere pretty reliably.
Teamwork is more powerful than trying to be individual bastions of awesome.
Every member of the party being an individual bastion of awesome is even better, because they can still work together without having to cover the weak guy's failing.
Ge mind controlled a lot.
Sure,, if you were never matched up against an opponent that actually threatened the party, I guess it doesn't matter if half of them don't even take their turns.
It's that sort of dismissive 'then you must not REALLY be playing the game' that I intentionally avoided with my comment.
I still maintain there's something wrong with your group's tactics if a failed save is the end. As I said above, you could have a +200 to your will, and you will still fail on a 1. I'm assuming you aren't restarting campaigns 5% of the time.
It is indeed bad if the group has to spend action economy to undo such effects. That applies to anything. And as per Murphy's law, anything will happen. Front liners will be knocked below 0, spellcasters will be grappled, and mezzers flub their initiatives. Adapt or die.
Now, not to say that pumping up will is a bad thing. Far from it. I'm just surprised at the 'fail a will save, you're done' philosophy I keep reading here. As mentioned, actually attacking your own party takes two saves. And at the level that dominates should start flying at you, the group probably has a lot of options to deal with it, both in prevention and remedy. Again, you can always fail a save no matter how high the bonus.
|
|
Yeah, I assumed I'd see responses like what I see. And they just validate what I think. I saw a list of conditions, feared confused etc all of them temporary annoyances which go away after a set duration.
I see responses like damage goes away quickly, drain just costs 100g, even death is just a speed bump at high levels... so somehow that makes a temporary penalty that goes away after a short time and costs 0 resources to remove worse? Getting feared can certainly contribute to a death, but it can't directly kill you. Failing reflex save vs a fireball or a fort save vs slay living can directly kill you.
I think people hate failing will saves because they hate losing control of their character. Being crowd controlled is somehow viewed as a worse fate than death.
Now, if you are playing in a super challenging home campaign with GM that throws dozens of will saves at you every fight and you tpk from one player losing an action, well I guess I understand why you disagree with me. I myself have never had this experience, nor would I think I'd enjoy such an unforgiving hardcore game. In my experience, most fights do not include dominate spamming spellcasters. And if my one PC gets dominated and somehow manages to murder the entire rest of the party, then there's some serious balance issues in my group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think your GMs are being really harsh if making you attack your friends doesn't count as 'against your nature.' I have evil characters that wouldn't do that, let alone neutral ones.
|
|
And on another note, it's not always about game mechanics. At least to me, when I develop a new PC (or NPC) my selection of ability scores takes in to account the persona I want for the character, not just the rules. Sometimes I want to play a naive or oblivious character and so I dump wisdom. In general, I think desiring to be an adventurer requires a certain amount of foolishness. The brash and foolhardy are much more apt to rush off to fight a dragon while common sense says it's a dragon, stay the @$*% away you idiot.
I'd still rather get feared/held/otherwise CCd into missing the combat than get killed. I don't see NPCs throwing dominate around like candy, if they do in your games, than I totally agree with you, but it's an infrequent occurrence in my experience, not something that constantly happens to the lowest will save PC every fight. And when they do try such things and the PC fails, their teammates frequently have an answer to it within a round.