Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Save or Die Spells: Keep Them Out of PvP Please


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Come on!!!

Goblin Squad Member

Just come prepared with death ward or deathblock.

I agree it's a bit unfair vs low level characters, and it should have some restrictions, but taking it out altogether seems to me to be taking it further than necessary.

Lantern Lodge

I dont think there should be save or die spells because then it becomes less about who has more skill and becomes more about first strike. anyone whos goal is to be pvp(min maxers) would maximize there save dc and try to strike first with such spells. very very unbalanced.

Goblin Squad Member

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I dont think there should be save or die spells because then it becomes less about who has more skill and becomes more about first strike. anyone whos goal is to be pvp(min maxers) would maximize there save dc and try to strike first with such spells. very very unbalanced.

I don't often agree with DLH, but I have to agree on this one, TBH I don't really like save or die spells in P&P, and I would say that they are one of the contributions to why 3.5 goes unballanced and silly at level 10, and pathfinder itself is rarely played above level 14ish. Save or dies if they are present, they should allow multiple saves etc... if present IMO They should IMO be a low chance, and multiple saves.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I'm going to point out that virtually every adaptation of D&D for a CRPG has either eliminated the save-or-die spells, or made them always fail versus important characters.

Save-or-die also has a lot of different meanings: I include everything from color spray to hold monster to phantasmal killer in that category; if it can make someone go from maximum condition to helpless in one go, it isn't fun for anybody else.

Save-or-be-stunned-for-a-bit, or save-or-be-knocked-back-really-far, on the other hand, would be good things to implement. 'Greater Command "drop"' can be a much more effective spell than 'slay living', even though it doesn't do any damage directly.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I dont think there should be save or die spells because then it becomes less about who has more skill and becomes more about first strike. anyone whos goal is to be pvp(min maxers) would maximize there save dc and try to strike first with such spells. very very unbalanced.
I don't often agree with DLH, but I have to agree on this one, TBH I don't really like save or die spells in P&P, and I would say that they are one of the contributions to why 3.5 goes unballanced and silly at level 10, and pathfinder itself is rarely played above level 14ish. Save or dies if they are present, they should allow multiple saves etc... if present IMO They should IMO be a low chance, and multiple saves.

Completely Agree.

Goblin Squad Member

I still don't like the idea, but I absolutely must concede that you have a strong point. As someone who has played DDO a lot, the limited PvP they have in that game is dominated by hair trigger min/max casters, and is hated by all others.

Goblin Squad Member

Save or die should not be removed from the game.

It should only work on weak NPCs, the usage in PvP would be to dispatch any summons/constructs.

Players could use them on lesser NPCs and NPCs can use them against the players summons/constructs/companions.

A good boss mechanic would be an attack that wipes out all NPCs in the battle area.

On a similar note: 1 hit KO's

There should be nothing done to prevent this from happening(after the game is balanced). Now this should only happen with a large 'level' gap. Say some new player kills another new player, the bounty is picked up by a 20 that comes and 1-shots the target.

What I don't want to see is a non-feat mechanic that leaves the player with 1hp, or sets a max amount of damage a player can take.

1 hit kills should still be a super rare occurrence, but not prevented by the game.


I always hear this argument in any game with pvp. Me no want one shots.

Why? Anything you can do, they can do, and vice versa.

What is the difference really in a one shot death via ranged spell, ranged attack (bow) or melee? Other than ranged having a slight advantage (slight due to the possibility of invisibility/hide) I see none at all. However your character dies, one hit is one hit. You aren't any more or less dead because it was from a spell or a sword.

Also, by removing spells, you are in effect removing part of the balance designed into the game in the first place. What are you going to replace those very powerful abilities/spells with to balance their removal, because you can't simply write them off and leave a blank space.

If you don't want some spell slinger hitting you first, then target them first. It's that simple. It's not fighting a stupid AI, and I really dislike attempting to turn characters into caricatures of them.

Goblin Squad Member

NPCs and PCs are all just characters in the same world...why would they be run by different mechanics? If the argument is that PCs are heroes, I would ask why half the world is a hero and the other not? What about the PCs who decide to only craft...how is that any different than the crafter NPC?

I was against One Shot kills, but what if you fall off a cliff? That is one shot...and then what if something hits you with the same or greater force what you build up as you fall off a cliff? But, I do agree no character should often be able to wield that sort of force. And definitely not on the run as is often the case in PvP.

One obvious place where it might happen, siege weapons if they are in game. Imagine being hit by a 2 meter long, 60 kg arrow...or a boulder...*squish*.

Lantern Lodge

first off, the pnp game is balanced for fighting non-players, second many have already asked for no onehits regardless of spell or weapon.

I think the only one shot kills should be from major lvl difference or from siege engines, if they do allow save or die spells then they should have decent casting times allowing the other team to try and stop the casting or get out of sight or something and should be like onishi suggested, low chance multiple saves.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree with you totally Dark...with the addition of massive size difference (which siege weapon probably falls into).


What though is the reason for no one hits? How does it unbalance anything to have them, because if one side can do something, so can the other.

You are only looking at ONE side of the equation:

Cast spell/activate weapon against a player -> player then either

1) fails save and falls over dead (this is what you people only see)

or

2) makes save and suffers NOTHING (the other side of the coin)

This is the truth of all or nothing attacks that for some reason people will not address properly in these types of arguments. How is that unbalancing? The trade off is that the person making the attack is gambling you fail, and he could be wrong. You assume too that the game is going to be like 4th edition cake walk and easy to play and difficult to lose. Or you may want it like that, I don't know.

Why do people only ever use the one side of the result to argue against such things? You can't cherry pick a situation and use half an outcome possibility to back yourselves up. Let's not forget that at those high levels come some very high bonuses to saves, plus augmentations that can radically alter a characters response to said spells or abilities like back stabbing, such as immunities to death magic and the like, which you can't possibly know if they intend to implement or not. And as well casting spells in combat requires using abilities like concentration and such with modifiers, and if they do NOT implement them in PvP, it's not true PvP in my view, it's PvP with a LOT of hand holding. Just because you are sitting in front of a screen doesn't mean your character is immune to game effects. And if you wish that were true because it means you might lose if it's not, well what kind of pvper does that make you?

It sounds rather childish to say you are ok with failed abilities or partial mitigation on success, but are totally against full success. Or do you simply want fights to take FOREVER...? That is the organizational tactic used by zergs.

Plus I rather like the idea that Paizo might add in some magic like wishes, which can be used to mitigate quite a few bad situations on a permanent basis, which are easily implemented in an MMO that uses flags and code to determine outcomes. Who is to say that if you find a wish and send them a PM to ask your wish, and a GM must implement it? Unique characters all around. That can't possibly be seen as a bad thing. Except by people who need to plan everything up front before a PvP fight. Posers. Min/maxers. Doesn't matter, they are all the same.

It's fantasy for crying out loud, and you want to willingly limit it. All because it's PvP....hardcore my butt. You guys sound like kids playing magic the gathering arguing about which cards should be banned or allowed, and then complaining about losing battles even after they've done that and compensated for the switch. You will NEVER be satisfied until you have the possibility in every fight that you can win. There is never an acceptance that losing is not only an option, but a strong possibility in certain unforeseen situations. That is always the root branch of this argument.

Come up with sound arguments for why they shouldn't be allowed. I've got an open mind, and am open to new ideas, assuming they make sense and hold up to scrutiny.

Goblin Squad Member

Probitas wrote:

What though is the reason for no one hits? How does it unbalance anything to have them, because if one side can do something, so can the other.

It dosn't balance it for sides, it balances it for classes. The fact that at high levels wizards and clerics have a chance to 1 hit, but a fighter/rogue etc...

PVE it is just as bad. If you are fighting an epic dragon or huge end monster. Then yes having it die instantly kills pretty much all the scenery of the battle. I see nothing good that save or dies add to a fight, many things they take away. Turning things into a coin toss and a DC vs Save arms race is not my thought of an epic fight, and I believe the majority of people tend to not enjoy it. What is enjoyable about a fight that is decided in 1 second?


I will admit that it seems that clerics and wizards are the only classes that can one shot, but that is not truly the case. With proper planning, any class at high level could be capable of it. Rogues in particular can easily accomplish save or dies if on the assassin route. Even fighters can do this using the proper weapon, like those that remove limbs/heads.

What you are talking about also sounds like you simply want battles to be EPIC? Well, say you fight a dragon. You have to be high level to even attempt this, and if you aren't, your GM is a pushover. At high levels, even a dragon can get unlucky. But that doesn't mean it will always occur. You argue against quick fights, but on the other hand, I always hear people brag about how much damage they do as well. What could be a bigger brag than I death fingered the evil mage? Even with all their protections, they can STILL lose. Same with players. That is why the game has resurrection built into it in the form of high level player skills, items or NPCS. That is how you are supposed to circumvent bad luck in DnD. Not simply redact it.

This argument is based on the exception rather than the rule, and the rule is that at high levels, most one shot spells don't succeed often except against lower level creatures compared against the caster, or a rare crit on a weapon that removes limbs/heads, which is about on par with the spells. That is not a very sound basis on which to ban something, on the chance it works versus the comparatively larger chance it won't. Which is why you should never depend on them. Use them, but have a backup.

If they always work, then you might have an argument.

The other side of this is that it punishes those who research their enemy. I don't mean trolling forums looking for raid data. I mean people who actually use in game information sources. If a group of players knows they will be fighting a demi-lich, and arm themselves accordingly to circumvent much of the defenses and armament, should the players be punished by allowing the demi-lich to avoid the intelligence of the players by preventing their usage of weaponry that hits harder, spells that do more damage, and deflecting most of the attacks? Because that is what you are arguing for. Longer fights solely justified because longer fights are somehow more EPIC, whereas a more intelligent fight is just as rewarding, and perhaps more so, since they didn't need the game (read GM) to fudge things in their favor even if the fight is shorter with less player damage? Even in PvP, if you know who it is you fight, and can adjust to gain the upper hand, should that be taken away to 'add balance' when all it really does is remove your brain from the fight and turn it into another twitch game like unreal tournament?

Goblin Squad Member

Probitas wrote:


This argument is based on the exception rather than the rule, and the rule is that at high levels, most one shot spells don't succeed often except against lower level creatures compared against the caster, or a rare crit on a weapon that removes limbs/heads, which is about on par with the spells. That is not a very sound basis on which to ban something, on the chance it works versus the comparatively larger chance it won't. Which is why you should never depend on them. Use them, but have a backup.

Right there first off has 2 issues.

1. Levels will not directly exist, and 2. High and low level characters will directly be on the same battlefield at the same time, and even with a difference in say 6 months vs 6 years, it would be rather unentertaining for the 6 month in player to be repeatedly instantly killed.

In actual P&P save or dies were only tollerable (yet still fairly regularly houseruled out, and even more often the game ends before anything besides Phantasmal killer, which has 2 saves.)

Even assuming the 3.5/pathfinder, save or dies are at least half way contained by very limited castings, and by the weapons being impractical to get in mass (you don't regularly see a party of 6, in which you have 2 casters with finger, and 4 mellees with vorpal in the P&P world). The only game that has really given it a shot would be DDO, which half way balanced it by, 1. PVP being completely moot, but save or dies are one of the things that make PVP completely pointless. 2. Anything important just has total blanket immunities to everything. Even with the important enemies having total immunities, vorpal weapons are still in ridiculous abundance among party members for clearing out everything else.

Save or dies make sense when they are rare and used sparingly. MMO's that never happens, regardless of how rare/expensive something is, you can expect huge quanties of people to have it, and spell casting cannot be nearly as limited in amounts of casts as the P&P game.

In P&P, your typical fight is only 18 seconds, but lasts 30 minutes to the players. In an MMO, you will more want the actual fight to go on for at least 3 minutes

Also as far as damage, people generally don't brag about luck events, they will brag about damage because that is usually mostly based on their gear/build. An instant 1 shot that does not care about health on the other hand... what is to brag about, what is there to do better?

Not that I particularly like damage boasters anyway, but just for the point.

Compare
I did 2.4k damage with X attack
next week person he bragged to works hard and gets 2.5k damage.

to
I finger of deathed X

There's nothing to compare, nothing to improve, not like he can improve upon it or anything. It's a meaningless statement of luck.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Probitas wrote:

I always hear this argument in any game with pvp. Me no want one shots.

Why? Anything you can do, they can do, and vice versa.

What is the difference really in a one shot death via ranged spell, ranged attack (bow) or melee? Other than ranged having a slight advantage (slight due to the possibility of invisibility/hide) I see none at all. However your character dies, one hit is one hit. You aren't any more or less dead because it was from a spell or a sword.

Also, by removing spells, you are in effect removing part of the balance designed into the game in the first place. What are you going to replace those very powerful abilities/spells with to balance their removal, because you can't simply write them off and leave a blank space.

If you don't want some spell slinger hitting you first, then target them first. It's that simple. It's not fighting a stupid AI, and I really dislike attempting to turn characters into caricatures of them.

Because the game isn't called "Gunfight at the OK Coral" where it's all about how fast you draw.

It's one thing if a spell or attack does enough damage to take someone out in one shot (Though I really don't like that much either)....but that tends to be very rare unless the target is extremely frail or the absolute perfect storm of situational bonuses align on an attack. Something that takes alot of work to arrange.

With the auto-kill spells, just 1 somewhat lucky roll can take out a demi-god. That doesn't make for very satisfying game-play for a Swords & Sorcery based RPG. Doing that with minions or something of the sort fine....but major hero's/villans no way.

I have no problem with 1 shot kills in say a WWII FPS style game. That fits both the genre and the style of game.

Thier in PnP mostly because the Players aren't going to be subject to them..... and because you have live GM's who will pretty much fudge the dice on those sort of abilities when they are taking out something they really shouldn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Save or dies are generally unfun in my opinion. When the only options are accomplish nothing or win, based off of a random number generater, it steals the sense of accomplishment that I get from succeeding in the challenge. One shotting mooks and much lower level PCs is different as you expect to be able to take care of something weak with minimal effort, either through spells or an axe to the head. However, you don't need save or dies to do that, any significant amount of damage accomplishes the same result.

Basically I agree Grumpy above me. Auto kill spells just aren't satisfying even if I am the one using them.


This argument is so one sided though, why remove abilities that have to be allowed in PvE? What are you going to replace them with? You want them gone, fine. What are you offering to balance the loss of that power? If you simply don't want to face that on a battlefield, well holy crap, why are you in pvp in the first place? Not fair, my class choice can't do that as easily? I think you guys spend too much time playing munchkin games to really understand what it's like to play the game properly. And yes, there is a difference.

And you are talking about a sense of accomplishment in a virtual game? There is Zero accomplishment. Doing nothing in a non-real environment accomplishes nothing. 0+0=0 It's phony baloney accomplishment. All in your own mind.

I think the only people against these powers are those who feel they may 'die' because of them. Certainly it's hollow sounding to say you don't enjoy using them. People like to win, however they do so, and I believe it's simply woolgathering to attempt to suggest you will be less happy because you managed a one shot on a lucky strike or spell. Don't even try to deny you won't enjoy winning a contest like that when it happens in your favor. It stinks of disingenuousness to state otherwise.

And really, there is little difference in dying from a save-or-die or as a result of massive criticals from NORMAL attacks, which do happen. Do you want to do away with all extremes in the game as well? That means doing away with successful extremes as well, otherwise you are munchkining out, wanting the cake and eating it too. You have to balance out the entirety, not simply pull out those things that could work against you. If you don't think it's fair to be able to damage someone to a handful of hits in one shot, you shouldn't be able to heal anyone the same way either. Otherwise, you have WOW. Kiddie land. Care Bear City. Hello Kitty. (The HEAL spell which does a practical full heal short by a couple hits, can be reversed to HARM at the same rate. I guess the entire spell should be pulled for you people to feel happy. If one shot killing is bad, so is one shot healing.)

God I miss AD&D. Perma death. Risk. This hand holding people seem to want is very disheartening. If Goblinworks does as you suggest, the game is going to be exactly like every other MMO out there. Is that what you want? Stupid raid setups that negate player abilities because it could end a battle too quickly, forgetting that the raid monsters have their OWN powers that can do the same back? <shakes head sadly>

If they have to totally rework all character classes, which is what you are asking for, it will not BE the same thing at all. It will be just an interpretation of PF. Not something I would want to play. I have had enough of the jokes that are MMOs lately with all their non-risk and crazy rewards for non-thought, stupid raids because players think a 40 minute fight that gives you carpal is the bomb. It is simplicity to translate the pnp game to an MMO state, except too many seem to want it to be EASY PEASY. No extremes. Easy to deal with and react to. No bad things happening please. My ego can't handle failure.

Goblin Squad Member

Probitas wrote:
Don't even try to deny you won't enjoy winning a contest like that when it happens in your favor. It stinks of disingenuousness to state otherwise.

If you're smelling something, it's not my "disingenuousness", it's the BS you're shoveling.

I would have zero respect for any combat game where I could one-shot a properly matched opponent. It can't happen in WoW or any other major MMO, and I'll be incredibly shocked and disappointed if GW allows it to happen in PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

Probitas wrote:

This argument is so one sided though, why remove abilities that have to be allowed in PvE? What are you going to replace them with? You want them gone, fine. What are you offering to balance the loss of that power? If you simply don't want to face that on a battlefield, well holy crap, why are you in pvp in the first place? Not fair, my class choice can't do that as easily? I think you guys spend too much time playing munchkin games to really understand what it's like to play the game properly. And yes, there is a difference.

Isn't it clear that the majority of people do not enjoy 1 shots, in either side? For many people win/lose isn't the moment of fun in the battle, it is actually the battle inbetween,

As far as the PVE... what loss of power, the game hasn't been written, nothing has been added, how is anything "lost" when nothing has been put in to begin with? Removing something changes the balance yes... but nothing is there yet, there is no balance to upset. If the game hasn't been written expecting save or die spells, than nothing needs to be adjusted for expecting save or die spells.

Maybe for you it is fun, maybe to you a game of chess would be just as exciting if it opens up with rolling a 20 sided dice, and if you roll a 20 you can call it a win, but that isn't how I want to play it, and not how many others would want to play the game, and people who enjoy chess wouldn't feel any accomplishment whether they auto win or feel that they lost fairly if they auto lose.

Even games of pure chance are usually not 1 hit wins. Even though it has no impact on the game, almost everyone who plays paper rock scissors, plays to 3 (ok ignoring the psychological ways one can get an edge in PRS)


Properly matched? WTF are you even talking about? The only PVP games I know that have players properly matched are those where everyone is generic. Like unreal tournament. Everything else is NOT. EVER. BALANCED. It is in a constant state of flux, moving from one OP to the next, as the loudest child cries the most to get a nerf on some other class, or a boost to their own. What you are asking for will never happen. It can't.

The only way you can claim total balance in a pvp confrontation is if both combatants are the same. Otherwise, you are going to have to learn to adapt. If you are not willing to do so, you have no place in a pvp game at all.

And I still don't understand how you fail to see that if they use the pnp rules as a base from which to start, all characters of like ability will be equivalent, to a point. You may have to adjust to remove advantages you do not have like range, or certain abilities like immunities, but if you simply want everyone to be the same, go play unreal. It is exactly balanced, is a twitch game, and only player skill is relevant. MMOs have NEVER been able to achieve this in any form of stability. People are always being nerfed. And if the game has pve AND pvp, the pve is always suffering due to the classes being adjusted for so-called pvp balance, which cannot occur.

Next whine will be about pvp gear, and then the rants for balanced gear will start. Do we even NEED pvp gear? If they do not introduce it, then it will NOT need balancing. I'd rather avoid a lot of the balance 'issues' players groups have, and simply keep that crap OUT. If it isn't there, you can't complain about it. Stop cherry picking the problem, and deal with the whole issue.

As far as the game not being written yet so I have no basis to form an opinion on the removal of abilities, neither does anyone have any basis on which to form an opinion on how those abilities would play out, as it hasn't been tested yet. You are attempting to have something pulled because you are afraid it might not work, but for all anyone of us knows, it may work just fine. That is quite a straw hat to use to downplay my balanced approach to this whole thing. If you are wanting to have negatives removed, you may as well remove all OP extremes on both sides of the equal sign. And it's only OP if there is no way to counter them, which, as you just stated, hasn't even been tested yet.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Probitas: If PvP cannot be fair because it is different, than PvE cannot be fair for exactly the same reason.

Imagine a game of Monopoly which has the normal rules and one addition: Whenever someone rolls a 12, they win, and whenever someone rolls a 2, they go bankrupt.

Strictly speaking, it remains as fair a game as it was before. It becomes a lot less fun, however, and loses most of the strategic elements in favor of becoming "who randomly wins and loses?"


Wanting pvp at high level to be balanced would require lots of tweaking, such as having ranged attacks & HIPS & fast movement to be weakened so close combatants have a chance catching up on them, monks be slowed so close combatants can catch up on them, spell casters losing spells so they don't one shot/far range attack/dominate/hold/time stop others....

However, I think it was mentioned that in PFO with a single class badges maxed is going to be equivalent to 10 levels in one class dip on tabletop, so save & die spells shouldn't be a problem (only phantasmal killer is available). I worry more about fighter types that can dish out 70~100 damages per hit, which would be either a miss or death to spell casters.


BARBARIAN GENERALLY FIND RAGELANCEPOUNCE SLIGHTLY MORE LETHAL THAN SOD/SOS SPELLS. RAGELANCEPOUNCE AM NEVER GIVING SAVE. AM JUST, BAM. DEAD.

SKIP DICE ROLL PRACTICALLY COMPLETELY.

MAYBE WANT FIX THAT TOO FOR ONLINE PLAY.

Goblin Squad Member

Mirage Wolf wrote:

Wanting pvp at high level to be balanced would require lots of tweaking, such as having ranged attacks & HIPS & fast movement to be weakened so close combatants have a chance catching up on them, monks be slowed so close combatants can catch up on them, spell casters losing spells so they don't one shot/far range attack/dominate/hold/time stop others....

However, I think it was mentioned that in PFO a max class badges is going to be equivalent to lv10 on tabletop, so save & die spells shouldn't be a problem (only phantasmal killer is available). I worry more about fighter types that can dish out 70~100 damages per hit, which would be either a miss or death to spell casters.

I believe that that was reported to have been misspoken by ryan, also though I at least hope for ballance that more or less nothing should be able to one shot anything other than a massively lower level opponent. Even then I am doubting the skill system and HP system will come that close to leveling in the order or levels of magnitude that the P&P game did.


Daniel Powell 318 wrote:

Probitas: If PvP cannot be fair because it is different, than PvE cannot be fair for exactly the same reason.

Imagine a game of Monopoly which has the normal rules and one addition: Whenever someone rolls a 12, they win, and whenever someone rolls a 2, they go bankrupt.

Strictly speaking, it remains as fair a game as it was before. It becomes a lot less fun, however, and loses most of the strategic elements in favor of becoming "who randomly wins and loses?"

I see now. You aren't really against random determination in your favor. You simply do not wish to give up control of results to a RNG, for any reason. However do you expect them to code PFO without using a RNG? Now you are talking about designing character classes with abilities that simply launch at key press and always react in a predetermined fashion, no surprises. Nothing too flashy or over the top, even when it's earned. And if someone finds a way to do it, you'll probably want that nerfed too. [And no offense, but that's just about one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Monopoly is game that is won by random results. There is some skill, but you can't skillfully make people roll the numbers to land on your property all the time and pay your rent, or do you know something about that game that I don't.]

That's WoW isn't it?

If they could take the Pathfinder DnD brand and code it directly to the PC, and changed nothing, it would be balanced already. There would be no reason to do a thing to it. It's only because there will be an introduction of PvP and raids that some gamers have issue with certain abilities and spells. If the only way they can code the game is to remove those abilities in favor of ridiculously long fights and everyone being equal, might I suggest they stop now, because they are simply going to put out a wheel others already have on the market.

Goblin Squad Member

Probitas wrote:


If they could take the Pathfinder DnD brand and code it directly to the PC, and changed nothing, it would be balanced already. There would be no reason to do a thing to it. It's only because there will be an introduction of PvP and raids that some gamers have issue with certain abilities and spells. If the only way they can code the game is to remove those abilities in favor of ridiculously long fights and everyone being equal, might I suggest they stop now, because they are simply going to put out a wheel others already have on the market.

Pathfinder rules are nothing remotely close to ballanced for an MMO. Nobody is saying anything about anyone being equal, but yes the fights do need to be longer... your average pathfinder battle is what 1-5 rounds. So 6 seconds to 30 seconds... obviously not designed around being fun in a real time setting, as well the pathfinder ruleset in general does fall appart above level 14, and is also not designed to have level 18's in the same battle as level 5's. Every goal of PFO is largely incompatible with the current rules of PFO. Hence why more or less the setting and the flavor are the intentions to be ported, but nowhere near all of the skills

Goblin Squad Member

Probitas wrote:
Properly matched? WTF are you even talking about?

Are you even trying to understand anyone else?

I didn't want to say "same level" because there aren't going to be levels. I'm talking in a very general sense of being roughly kinda sorta the same power level.

[EDIT] If you look around, you'll see I've made your point about there never being any real balance about a million times.


<sigh> It's obvious there is no discussion on this possible. MMOs already use RNG to determine things like roots and stuns, but apparently they can never use the RNG to determine things like dying. It's such a sad commentary on the state of roleplaying when the players don't want challenge with results that matter. You only want caricatures, pale images of challenge. I hope P/GW disappoints you.

Nihimon, a 5th level caster can't have the same power level as a 10th level caster, even with 5 lvls of some non caster added on. I think you are arguing for munchkinism and min/maxing.

Goblin Squad Member

Probitas wrote:
Nihimon, a 5th level caster can't have the same power level as a 10th level caster, even with 5 lvls of some non caster added on. I think you are arguing for munchkinism and min/maxing.

And is there a reason you think I'm arguing that?

Or are you just assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you automatically must be making the worst argument you can think of?

How successful do you think Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat would have been if there were characters who had even a 5% chance of instantly killing their opponent in the opening move?


I think that the problem most of us have with save or dies isnt the RNG, it's the lack of actions we can take to combat the death. If someone roots us there are still actions we can take and the decisions we make determine our skill, if someone gets lucky on the one shot kill then there is nothing we can do, our individual skills do not matter. It actually gets worse if the RNG doesnt matter, if someone can kill someone else of equal level every time, either through impossible saves or massive damage thats gauranteed to hit it becomes a twitch game where the first person who acts wins (Kinda like high level d20). Most of us prefer the sweet spot where our fates aren't determined by our initiative roll. The RNG isn't the problem as much as the possiblity of skill mattering less than luck.

Goblin Squad Member

exil3dbyrd wrote:
I think that the problem most of us have with save or dies isnt the RNG, it's the lack of actions we can take to combat the death. If someone roots us there are still actions we can take and the decisions we make determine our skill, if someone gets lucky on the one shot kill then there is nothing we can do, our individual skills do not matter. It actually gets worse if the RNG doesnt matter, if someone can kill someone else of equal level every time, either through impossible saves or massive damage thats gauranteed to hit it becomes a twitch game where the first person who acts wins (Kinda like high level d20). Most of us prefer the sweet spot where our fates aren't determined by our initiative roll. The RNG isn't the problem as much as the possiblity of skill mattering less than luck.

Indeed I think in most cases I view a battle in an MMO as an even mixture of the following

1. Your skill
2. Your planning (Character build, pre-fight setup)
3. gear/equipment/levels
4. Luck

all evenly set at about 25% each. The big thing is no one of those things should instantly negate the other 3.

Even being the neo of the game, won't compensate if you blindly jump into a fight against a far higher level, better geared character without a plan

even the perfect plan should not compensate if you are incompetent and underleveled

even if you outlevel and outgear your opponent, you should not win if you are half asleep and didn't see the fight coming..

And yes 1 lucky or unlucky roll, even at 5% chance, should not instantly win or lose the fight and render skill/planning/gear irelevant.

The idea of luck being a factor isn't despised, it is it being a factor with so strong of an impact that it can render all other factors irrelevant.

Goblin Squad Member

I would very much like to see 1 on 1 combat between "properly matched" (see definition above) characters last about 90 seconds on the low end, with a pretty clear picture of what's going to happen in half that time, so the likely loser can begin trying to disengage.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Probitas wrote:
Daniel Powell 318 wrote:

Probitas: If PvP cannot be fair because it is different, than PvE cannot be fair for exactly the same reason.

Imagine a game of Monopoly which has the normal rules and one addition: Whenever someone rolls a 12, they win, and whenever someone rolls a 2, they go bankrupt.

Strictly speaking, it remains as fair a game as it was before. It becomes a lot less fun, however, and loses most of the strategic elements in favor of becoming "who randomly wins and loses?"

I see now. You aren't really against random determination in your favor. You simply do not wish to give up control of results to a RNG, for any reason. However do you expect them to code PFO without using a RNG? Now you are talking about designing character classes with abilities that simply launch at key press and always react in a predetermined fashion, no surprises. Nothing too flashy or over the top, even when it's earned. And if someone finds a way to do it, you'll probably want that nerfed too. [And no offense, but that's just about one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Monopoly is game that is won by random results. There is some skill, but you can't skillfully make people roll the numbers to land on your property all the time and pay your rent, or do you know something about that game that I don't.]

I know what the movement other than dice rolls is, and I know what properties are more likely to be hit in the next few turns. In the short term, I might take a very large risk by mortgaging properties less likely to be hit in order to develop the properties more likely to be hit. If I judge the costs, risks, and benefits of that tactic wisely, I will on average come out ahead. In the larger scheme, I need to be able to determine what a property is worth to me, and what it is worth to deny that property to others. I need to do this in a game where the value of cash is also variable. That's a lot of decisions which effect the outcome, and making those decisions in such a manner as to win IS skill.

I don't have a problem with there being some random elements. I have a problem with the result of the game being a single random element.


Save or Die effects won't work in an MMO, so I doubt you have much to fear.


I'm not so certain. As far as I know, the intent is to code in the core rule book in it's entirety, to the extent that it can be coded in. At 2.5 years to hit the 20 lvl cap, those skills aren't going to be much of an issue for a LONG time. And by then, all long term players will have their own magic altering modifications that will probably reduce such things, and most magic using players will likely be using other spells that cause players problems indirectly that they can't save against, like a river of lava, or earthquake. Even a simple gust of wind can give you a lot of grief if you aren't mentally prepared to deal with it. What it comes down to is a persons ability to adapt to new situations. PvP is the ultimate game in that regard, and if you can't adapt, you will lose every time.

Targeted spells at high level are notorious for failing, but area spells are another matter, as well as spells that change the environment you are in without giving you a save at all.

What if some enterprising player figures a way to remove all the air in a given space? Your character then has about 2 minutes to either flee or keel over unconscious from lack of oxygen while he's quite fine wearing his necklace of adaptation, then have the guy walk forward and simply coup de grâce you anyway. And it's not instant either. What if he simply summons up a rust monster, and then you are constantly having to avoid that while he gets a bunch of free shots because you can't deal with having your magic armor reduced to dinner?

What will you guys do when someone uses spells in ways that are creative and still leave you losing? Or worse, has a case full of different damage dealing and altering wands that shoot instantly each round. Then what, nerf that too? Suck it up. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight and you should do fine.

But there is no way to do away with the RNG. If you don't want to risk the chance that you will lose due to a bad turn of dice, even in pvp (lets face it, roots and such are rng, and a root can get you killed too), you should probably NOT play this game when it's developed and launched. Stick to WoW and other pvp lite games that limit player creativity in favor of static fights that are easy to build for.

Goblin Squad Member

As a mage save or die spells have sucked eggs for me even with high DCs because of rng it never seamed to work out and I died a lot as the foes close and kill me. Terrain changers Walls pits and so on Hand spells anything to delay and disrupt the enemy was a team win. more so if I could force them in to a damage overtime area effect.

Again save or die spells without a blocker tank something are risky business.


I'm jumping into this argument rather late in the day, but here goes.

All combat in a RP game is highly unrealistic for the simple reason that in real life, it would never last that long. If you think about it, a single slash across the throat, a single arrow through the lungs, a single blow to the head with an axe will put your average person out of action, usually for good; but of course in an RPG that doesn't happen, for the simple reason that it wouldn't be any fun at all. So most RPG combat involves taking a large number of hits any one of which should have incapacitated you.

I think the reason that many people dislike Save or Die spells is that they ignore this essential principle - they just seem too... easy. And the fact, repeated several times above, that they are just as likely to fail entirely, does not balance matters. It's true that Rogue/Assassin types can sometimes pull off a clean kill, but that's not exactly instantaneous or easy, involving as it does sneaking, silence, hiding in shadows etc. So on balance, I'd be inclined to favour leaving out Save or Die spells, or else at least restricting them very severely.

Goblin Squad Member

Probitas wrote:
As far as I know, the intent is to code in the core rule book in it's entirety, to the extent that it can be coded in.

Ryan has been pretty clear that there are a lot of things that work in the tabletop that just won't work in an MMO. I won't speak for Ryan, but it's obvious to me that Save-or-Die abilities won't work in an MMO.


Well then Nihimon, explain to me then why in raids, players can be insta killed by NPCs? Why is that OK? Why can't players return the favor? I've seen this happen, an odd convergence of random events and whammo! Crit, while debuffed, and a massive crit on top of that, and a guy with 6k hp falls over.

I just cannot understand why players find it acceptable to accept those long odds against them without wanting the balance of being able to do it back. And if you can use it in a raid, you should be able to use it anywhere. And you know, most of those raid mob attacks do not offer a save at all. It just happens. So it's not even save OR die, it's just die. And that's even with the mass of hp players accumulate to already make fights last longer than is realistic.

The argument sounds more and more like "I don't want a player to be able to insta kill me, but raid mobs doing it are A-OK"....which is BS if that's the case. It's just a bias against extreme risk in PvP only. Sure, you could state that since no one can do so, it's fair. But, it's pretty obvious the complaint is one designed solely to protect your own bacon, and has nothing really to do with gameplay, or even the 'fun' issue. You are really just trying to limit your risk. There are already a lot of games out there that do that. WoW for one.

And really, why shouldn't someone who's made level cap with capstone want to go solo against some potent creatures, and be able to use insta spells. Those spells take the place of legions of creatures, or an adventuring party. The hidden argument against these abilities is that you don't want a player to be capable of doing such a thing without being grouped up for it, which I find old, stale, and done to death in every MMO so far. Why not try something new. That might be fun, or even MORE fun. Why must everything be done as a group if it's against a rare and powerful creature. I see a lot of parallels between a lvl 20 sorc and Gandalf, each having the potential to be able to solo a Balrog. Sure, it's going to be a fight, but give the guy the chance to try at least, why limit the options. Because it's been done that way in all the other MMOs?

This also brings up a related issue. That of twinking lowbies or bringing high level characters into lowbie jaunts and doing all the work for them while the lowbies do little but act as xp sinks. High level player wanders in, insta kills the mob(s), and the lowbies get quest rewards. That is happening every hour in every MMO now, let alone perhaps in this game, yet no one says a peep. It's normal game behavior. What is the difference I ask of swatting down a mob with a high level character for a bunch of low level ones removing all their risk, and what you claim is so wrong with an insta dead spell against an on level opponent? I find no difference at all. If you are going to be against on level insta spells, then I hope GW makes it so high level players can't group with lower level players, so we avoid making the game not fun for them.

Goblin Squad Member

Probitas wrote:
Well then Nihimon, explain to me then why in raids, players can be insta killed by NPCs? Why is that OK? Why can't players return the favor? I've seen this happen, an odd convergence of random events and whammo! Crit, while debuffed, and a massive crit on top of that, and a guy with 6k hp falls over.

I believe the super uber powered raid boss is not on the agenda to our knowlege, and if it is it should be rare. In WoW the purpose of the raid boss like that is to put the reliance on the trinity, and to help show the reason for the uber epic gear etc... To make the raid only survivable with epic tier 3 gear with the tank in his epic tier 5 gear holding agro 100% of the time. Considering paizo is intending to avoid the trinity, I find that unlikely to happen.

In your next example I think that the difference in level between a top of the line and fairly new player, is not going to be nearly as significant as you do. Based on the eve/sandbox model low levels and high levels are actually comperable enough that they can coincide and often work towards the same goal, fight the same challanges together etc... The idea of the lowbies contributing nothing to a fight is a trait of MMO's that does need to be eliminated, and so far everything of PFO seems to work in that direction.

Also your refference to newbie zones.. There will most likely not be "newbie zones", there will be low risk areas, which will have both new and experienced players who wish to avoid pvp. The rest of the world may have varying dangers, but there will be no established "Levels" of danger, in low security teritory you may face anything from small packs of kobolds to dragons, to swarms of undead etc... but nothing will be sorted by level, and the hex that had mostly weak skeletons one day, may have a red dragon the next day. Danger of an area will not always be easy to predict.

I can't remember if it was this thread or any others, but your assumptions are mostly based on the game being as close of an adaptation to the P&P rules as possible. Well lets take a look at every anouncement so far

Blog 1-2, informing of it being a sandbox over large area of land, involving kingdom making etc.. This dosn't contradict the P&P, but asside from kingmaker is not consistant, also anouncing of PVP on a regular basis. Considering PVP in pathfinder and most P&P, is an extremely rare occourance.

Blog 3: confirmation of a non level based, but skills and archtype system, as well as skills leveling over time rather than via XP or usage. Direct complete total different path from P&P

Blog 4. Death, information about being killed can cost you your carried items but not equiped, with no other ill effects, Also completely different from P&P

Blog 5. Complicated deep economic system of crafters adventurers etc...
Also absolutely 100% different from P&P rules.

Blog 6. Guild/organization information: Obviously nothing like this exists in P&P.

It is silly to assume anything of PFO will line up with the rules of P&P, when so far not a single anouncement has lined up with that, the closest to that is that the archtypes will vaguely resemble the general flavor of the classes, however they specifically avoided calling them classes, which implies to me, they have no intention of them mechanically matching the classes, only having the same flavor and feel, rather than being mechanically identical.

Goblin Squad Member

Death: that generally gets handled by houserules. Re-roll? Go back to important plot point? New characters loot the old guy's corpse? Found by travelling priests and res'd?

Crafting: I don't recall reading enough details of the crafting system to agree that it is in fact different from PnP. The rulebooks may not lay out the details of how an economy should work, but that does not mean it correct to assume your campaign world has none.

I believe one of the guilds that posted in our Guild lineup thread here got their start in PnP. That, plus the guild is basically just a metagame expression of an adventuring company.

I'm seeing plenty assumptions as well.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:

Death: that generally gets handled by houserules. Re-roll? Go back to important plot point? New characters loot the old guy's corpse? Found by travelling priests and res'd?

Crafting: I don't recall reading enough details of the crafting system to agree that it is in fact different from PnP. The rulebooks may not lay out the details of how an economy should work, but that does not mean it correct to assume your campaign world has none.

Well considering that ryan has regularly mentioned harvesters finding mats to give to crafters, as well as adventurers finding rare items that a crafter would be able to work wonders with. The P&P system more or less is just time and money, it is assumed that any materials that are needed can be bought in any town.

Also considering it has been implied crafting skills are a seperate goal from adventuring skills, that implies that the core portion of crafting is not the same as learning cleric or wizard spells to gain the ability to make items.

Quote:

I believe one of the guilds that posted in our Guild lineup thread here got their start in PnP. That, plus the guild is basically just a metagame expression of an adventuring company.

I'm seeing plenty assumptions as well.

Right the main thing is everything we've seen has been either a contradiction or an element that is more or less not covered by P&P rules, admitted we have only seen 5% of it, but if none of the 5% looks like a duck, then it is silly to assume that the other 95% does.

Goblin Squad Member

It may not be covered by PnP rules directly, but you are also not just assuming those ingredients came into being just when you begin crafting. As with many things in PnP, it is assumed things are happening in the background. They're just talking about players being able to do some of those things now.

This is all tangental though. We're talking about a combat scenario, so we don't need to look at crafting or exploration differences to justify combat differences. Why does one point of view or another make sense for the inclusion or exclusion of certain spells? If crafting differences matter, then I may as well start telling you the color of my socks in response.

Of course there are going to be differences between PFO and PnP. Playing in real time with lots of other people and sticking too closely to PnP just doesn't make sense, but that does not lead to automatic assumptions that what you want to be different will be different. So why do you think this particular combat scenario doesn't work? Why does it work in PnP? What differences are key to breaking that functionality in an MMO?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's the rogue ability equivalent to 'hold person' 'ghoul touch' or 'sleep'? "Qualifying target must save or become helpless" is such a powerful effect at all tiers that it would have to be as difficult to acquire as other instant-kill abilities. If you don't mind a rogue getting an automatic critical ranged sneak attack repeatedly, then you can have a "kill" spell at that point.

Goblin Squad Member

Daniel Powell 318 wrote:
What's the rogue ability equivalent to 'hold person' 'ghoul touch' or 'sleep'? "Qualifying target must save or become helpless" is such a powerful effect at all tiers that it would have to be as difficult to acquire as other instant-kill abilities. If you don't mind a rogue getting an automatic critical ranged sneak attack repeatedly, then you can have a "kill" spell at that point.

Stunning Assault.

But the point is not what does one class have that another doesn't, but rather why should they be made more similar just because it's an MMO when they are dissimilar in PnP?

Goblin Squad Member

Probitas wrote:
Well then Nihimon, explain to me then why in raids, players can be insta killed by NPCs? Why is that OK?

It's not. See this thread for an in-depth discussion.

Probitas wrote:
But, it's pretty obvious the complaint is one designed solely to protect your own bacon, and has nothing really to do with gameplay, or even the 'fun' issue. You are really just trying to limit your risk.

One of the most annoying things you can do to anybody is say "I don't believe the words coming out of your mouth, I believe you actually have this stupid, petty motive that I'm assigning to you".

If you're genuinely interested in dialogue, I would ask you to really put some effort into understanding the arguments that you've been so quick to dismiss and come back and say something constructive.

Goblin Squad Member

You reference the thread about raid bosses being toned down to eliminate a need for the "trinity trap" but then in another thread suggest players being army of one powerful

Nihimon wrote:
I actually still think there's room for a single character to swoop in riding a powerful dragon if it took a significant number of players a significant amount of time to unlock it, and then would only last a limited amount of time.
as well as:
Nihimon wrote:
Basically, what I'm saying is that I think the game should support not only direct power, by having a large army immediately present, but also amassed power, where you build up resources over time and then can unleash those resources when the timing is right. I see the effort to capture a dragon and bend it to your will temporarily in this light. Likewise, my oft-stated desire for it to be possible for a Necromancer to gradually build up an entire army of undead (with appropriate costs, and very likely working with other players to help tend his army and gather resources, etc.)

and then in another complain about single target insta killers.

I'm getting a very odd picture of "balance". How are your suggestions in the taming thread not ridiculously more powerful than an instakill spell with a save (which can be blocked altogether with small preparation)? And how are they not going to force all players into a pet gathering role, else be obsolete?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Blaeringr wrote:
Daniel Powell 318 wrote:
What's the rogue ability equivalent to 'hold person' 'ghoul touch' or 'sleep'? "Qualifying target must save or become helpless" is such a powerful effect at all tiers that it would have to be as difficult to acquire as other instant-kill abilities. If you don't mind a rogue getting an automatic critical ranged sneak attack repeatedly, then you can have a "kill" spell at that point.

Stunning Assault.

But the point is not what does one class have that another doesn't, but rather why should they be made more similar just because it's an MMO when they are dissimilar in PnP?

srd wrote:

Stunned

A stunned creature drops everything held, can't take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).

Attackers receive a +4 bonus on attack rolls to perform combat maneuvers against a stunned opponent.
Unconscious

Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having negative hit points (but not more than the creature's Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.

Stunned is quite a bit different from asleep, 'unable to attack' is different from helpless, and a feat which requires BaB of +16 or better is not available at the same time as first-level spellcasting. Stunning Assault is roughly equal to Power Word Stun, so "Goodnight everybody" would be the feat for level 1 rogues that applies nonlethal sneak attack damage to everybody within range, in order to be roughly equivalent to Sleep?

1 to 50 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Save or Die Spells: Keep Them Out of PvP Please All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.