| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. Are you only using Save or Suck spells/hexes? How about debuffs or damage?
Witches aren't blasters. They don't do damage. Their spell list doesn't support that.
Most of their Save or Suck spells ARE debuffs. You try to debuff someone and the debuff is negated by a save. Whether spells or hexes, witches are very dependent on being able to beat saves. They don't have a ton of debuff options that bypass saves, and debuff is the main thing they do.
The main exception to that would be the Evil Eye hex, which gives you a round of the debuff even if they fail their save, and which can be extended by cackle. But that's not a huge debuff, and in and of itself it may not do enough to let you start succeeding on saves for other things.
Slumber is very nice, but it's not an automatic win. You need to get a melee into position adjacent to the BBEG, and then have him delay to right after your witch to be able to try to coup de grace him immediately if your hex works. Which if he's tough enough is not even a guaranteed kill and may just wake him back up again. If the boss has any mooks around they can easily wake him up on their turn, as can any standard attacks, and he'll be immune to hex for the rest of the day. Also the coup de grace is a full round action that would provoke attacks of opportunity from those mooks.
If you're paranoid about your BBEG being coup de grace'd before a minion can wake him, the solution isn't to fudge your die rolls it's to make him immune to mind affecting or magical sleep or give him high will saves, like many, many common categories of enemies.
The dependency on save DCs is why I put my ability focus on my Misfortune hex. I really want to be able to land that debuff on enemies more than anything. Once that lands they have to reroll twice for almost every d20, including future saves. A reroll is no guarantee against a DM who fudges saving throws though.
In a game based on rolling dice the results of the rolls should be sacrosanct. Fudging the occasional roll here or there may benefit "the story" at the cost of the integrity of the game being played.
Adapt the encounters to account for player abilities or ban certain things but fudging dice is a slippery slope that can result in the GM deciding outcomes rather than letting the dice decide, as intended.
wow... the slippery slope argument?
I expected that much sooner.
In a game based on rolling dice the results of the rolls should be sacrosanct. Fudging the occasional roll here or there may benefit "the story" at the cost of the integrity of the game being played.
Adapt the encounters to account for player abilities or ban certain things but fudging dice is a slippery slope that can result in the GM deciding outcomes rather than letting the dice decide, as intended.
At this point in our roleplaying careers, my guys are more interested in getting a good story than total fidelity. They know that their characters can destroy every encounter I throw at them.
And to make sure that we understand each other, this happens not with every roll, just some important ones, to keep an important villain have a bit more stamina, so that he won't go down like a chump, but rather stay more memorable. Normal mooks go down as the dice dicate.
In a game based on rolling dice the results of the rolls should be sacrosanct. Fudging the occasional roll here or there may benefit "the story" at the cost of the integrity of the game being played.
Adapt the encounters to account for player abilities or ban certain things but fudging dice is a slippery slope that can result in the GM deciding outcomes rather than letting the dice decide, as intended.
At this point in our roleplaying careers, my guys are more interested in getting a good story than total fidelity. They know that their characters can destroy every encounter I throw at them.
And to make sure that we understand each other, this happens not with every roll, just some important ones, to keep an important villain have a bit more stamina, so that he won't go down like a chump, but rather stay more memorable. Normal mooks go down as the dice dicate.
This...
Over use of the "fudged" die roll (just like any tool) causes it to lose its effectiveness.
There is a reason I very rarely use save for no effect abilities, I assume that every save that the DM makes will roll 15 or higher on the die. This seems to be the case with half effect spells too, but it doesn't hurt as much when everybody makes the save.
Presumably you don't play a witch then. The class is designed around abilities that don't have an effect if they pass their save. It's hard to make a viable witch build around half effect spells. You're better off just skipping the class. But if you're doing it because the DM consistently cheats, that person should have told you not to play a witch up front rather than ruining the character passive aggressively.
Not all of us consider meta-gaming to be cheating.
We just consider it playing the game.
And yet Meta-gaming is almost universally frowned upon...
If the practice is considered unacceptable by a majority that would be the definition of a type of cheating would it not?
|
And yet Meta-gaming is almost universally frowned upon...
If the practice is considered unacceptable by a majority that would be the definition of a type of cheating would it not?
And then we get into the big discussion of 'when is metagaming a good thing' and blah blah blah. But no, the majority is not always right.
Um, no. No, everyone does not cheat.It sets a nasty precedent and drops the level of trust between players and GM drastically. Do you allow your players to cheat if its "just this once"?I have watched players "nudge" their dice, "miscalculate" bonuses, utilize feats/skills/spells/powers/etc they should not have access to, and many myriad other versions of cheating...
Everyone cheats.
It is just a matter of how often and how blatant.
Yep. I do not cheat as a player, ever. Why? Because I am no longer 14 and obsessed with winning at all costs.
Um, no. No, everyone does not cheat.It sets a nasty precedent and drops the level of trust between players and GM drastically. Do you allow your players to cheat if its "just this once"?I have watched players "nudge" their dice, "miscalculate" bonuses, utilize feats/skills/spells/powers/etc they should not have access to, and many myriad other versions of cheating...
Everyone cheats.
It is just a matter of how often and how blatant.Yep. I do not cheat as a player, ever. Why? Because I am no longer 14 and obsessed with winning at all costs.
See my post expanding on what I meant by that...
Maybe it is just that I have grown cynical in my dotage; But It is my view.We all cheat.
Or perhaps I should have said...
We have all cheated at one point or another. (it is human nature).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And once again a simple little discussion descends into everyone claiming everyone else is having badwrongfun because they don't play the same way they do...
We all play differently, why can't people just understand and accept that?
Story-orientated play isn't "better", competitive play isn't "better", optimizing isn't "better", playing by RAW isn't "better", preventing meta-gaming isn't "better", they're all just different.
I am playing a witch in a hombrew campaign. After the first couple of sessions the bad guys have been on a tear making their saves against my hexes. While they should be making their saves about 30% of the time they are making them about 2/3 of the time now. Over a short time dice can get hot but I am talking about many sessions with multiple combats each with me throwing out hexes more rounds than not. Possible but highly unlikely to be that lucky for that long. I should note that the rolls are behind a screen.
I recognize that that the witch can be a powerful class. I asked the GM if he was uncomfortable with the witch mechanics and would prefer me to switch classes. He told me that it was fine.
Here's the problem. Every time a save is made now I am questioning whether he actually made it or the GM fudged it to balance the fight. It takes a lot of the fun out of it for me. Would it be out of line to ask the GM to roll where we all can see? I respect his right to balance the fight but changing rolls seems like a poor way to go about it.
But back to the post that started this...
yes the saves do seem high.But being confrontational with the GM is the best way to guarantee that an argument ensues.
My suggestion is to mention it in an off hand manner as an in game musing.
"Man... it seems like these guys are shrugging off my hexes more than they should... Hey guys help me search these guys real good; I think they may have some sort of enchantments or items on them helping in that regard."
This way if the GM is indeed grabbing that particular tool a little too often you have given him a "story based out" to use to repair the trust between you.
If they know their characters can destroy every encounter you throw at them what is the point of playing?In a game based on rolling dice the results of the rolls should be sacrosanct. Fudging the occasional roll here or there may benefit "the story" at the cost of the integrity of the game being played.
Adapt the encounters to account for player abilities or ban certain things but fudging dice is a slippery slope that can result in the GM deciding outcomes rather than letting the dice decide, as intended.
At this point in our roleplaying careers, my guys are more interested in getting a good story than total fidelity. They know that their characters can destroy every encounter I throw at them.
And to make sure that we understand each other, this happens not with every roll, just some important ones, to keep an important villain have a bit more stamina, so that he won't go down like a chump, but rather stay more memorable. Normal mooks go down as the dice dicate.
A good story? Friendship? Enjoyment of the system? Of fantasy stories in general? Roleplaying? Escapism? Maybe the enjoyment of putting together a well-build character? You know, the things which bring RP groups together.
Not all of us consider meta-gaming to be cheating.
We just consider it playing the game.
And yet Meta-gaming is almost universally frowned upon...
If the practice is considered unacceptable by a majority that would be the definition of a type of cheating would it not?
God stuff like this annoys me.
Meta-gaming != fudging dice rolls
You can't equate the two.
Avoiding one requires constant diligence on the player or the GM on keeping their knowledge separate from their character's knowledge.
Avoiding the other requires looking at the dice and believing what you see.
They are already fundamentally different and that is even before going into how not all forms of meta-gaming is cheating. For example, whenever you tell your GM your AC that is meta-gaming. It's part of following the rules to have these abstract concepts.
No meta-gaming results in these kinds of situations
GM:"Monster swing his sword more accurately than any strike you have ever seen"
Player:"I dodge out of the way"
GM:"Ummm, it's a melee attack, there is no reflex save"
Player:"Quit meta-gaming cheater"
GM:"Rocks fall party dies"
And once again a simple little discussion descends into everyone claiming everyone else is having badwrongfun because they don't play the same way they do...
We all play differently, why can't people just understand and accept that?
Story-orientated play isn't "better", competitive play isn't "better", optimizing isn't "better", playing by RAW isn't "better", preventing meta-gaming isn't "better", they're all just different.
I think you are confusing things here. So far, only one side has been calling people "munchkins" and been generally insulting.
I think you are confusing things here. So far, only one side has been calling people "munchkins" and been generally insulting.
Whether or not that's the case, taking sides is the fastest way to escalate things. I'm hoping (somewhat in vain) that making the point from a neutral position might actually get everyone to read it rather than dismiss it as an attack on their respective sides of the argument.
Sometimes I just get so frustrated with this community :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those things are all good but if the outcome is is predetermined what is the point in rolling dice? The things that I look back on and have the best memories is the TPKs or near TPKs where I didn't know whether or not the group would make it out. It is the uncertain outcome which provides the thrill to me. YMMV. I do take to heart the admonition to not tell others that their idea of fun is wrong but for me if I know I can beat every fight I would rather do something else with my time.
I can empathize with that, but on the other hand you have to take into account that the system is built with the assumption that players are going to win. NPC's don't get PC gear, because they are supposed to lose. Monsters of equal CR are (mostly) not as tough as PC's, because they are supposed to lose. If the party loses, then the campaign is over and all the work one has done as GM and all the money the GM has invested in things like buying adventure paths is a wash.
I fudge dice for some bosses, so that they can leave a good impression on the party. Sometimes I fudge the dice the on part of the players, because having a dead party member at that point would disrupt the flow of the campaign. As a GM, I have different responsibilities to the campaign than a player has, who just has to show up and play his character.
Those things are all good but if the outcome is is predetermined what is the point in rolling dice? The things that I look back on and have the best memories is the TPKs or near TPKs where I didn't know whether or not the group would make it out. It is the uncertain outcome which provides the thrill to me. YMMV. I do take to heart the admonition to not tell others that their idea of fun is wrong but for me if I know I can beat every fight I would rather do something else with my time.
Exactly right. Don't play what you're not going to enjoy, as long as you understand someone else may be enjoying it :)
As usual, people (in general, I'm not aiming this at you) tend to read too much into things people say on the Internet. I'm a dice fudging GM. That doesn't mean I'll fudge every combat, most of the time I'll let things turn out the way it says, but sometimes the dice just give a result that leads to an overall outcome that feels very, very wrong. To use a very exaggerated example, having a PC die from a paper cut would feel kinda unheroic :) If they die because they charged into a horde of goblins though, that's something else entirely. It doesn't have to be "make sure they always win" (or lose) - sometimes it's just a matter of negating what appears to be a very silly result that is going to ruin the group's fun, bearing in mind here that different groups see different things as fun and that should be what leads the GM's decision as to whether or not dice fudging is right for this particular game.
If I was GMing for a group of very competitive players, there's no way I'd fudge that roll, paper cut or no ;) It would be wrong, but only wrong in this case because of the group circumstances - just as it would be right to do for the story-focused group.
To put it another way - whether dice fudging, metagaming, or anything else is considered "cheating" is for individual groups to decide upon, and certainly not something for the Internet Collective to decide by majority vote. It's "cheating" when it breaks the individual house rules (or lack thereof) the group have agreed upon
Issues only really occur when the group isn't all on the same page, and that's when they need to sit down and talk it over.
I have played under a GM that rolls really well, and he rolled in the open so I know he was not fugding. With that said just ask him if he has been fudging.
This is what I mean about GM powers used to change the story arc, rather than ramrodding the pcs down a path that you predetermined as GM. That is how I felt in that guys Star Wars campaign - you meet some name NPC - and he can shoot at you, but you can't kill him because it would change his universe.
On the occasions I have that "unbeatable" BBEG NPC, there's still a point to that fight: seeing whether he defeats the PCs, or whether they defeat (drive him off, in this case, rather than kill) them.
The same can happen with random important NPC the PCs have just met. Lets take the example of a GM deciding to drop Han Solo into a scene, just for the PCs to decide to attack him. He doesn't have to be killable - he could be defeated by having him run away when he's obviously going to lose, or the local authorities could arrive and arrest everyone. The result is then the PCs have made an enemy, and the story can still change organically around that. That's a nice way to give the PCs their victory, and allow them to change the game universe, while still having the NPC survive in order to do something they're planned to do later (or simply because they're an iconic NPC in that setting.)
Perhaps Han is pre-scripted to show up in a fight against an NPC later - in which case now he may also take pot-shots at the PCs as well as the NPC. There could also be new subplots to explore as he sabotages their ship and leaves them drifting in space after a failed hyperspace jump, or uses his contacts to ensure they get bad prices from traders.
The game isn't necessarily on rails, just because someone can't be obliterated from the game universe. A good GM will find ways to allow the PCs to still make a difference to the direction of the story.
Sometimes you defeat the evil baron, burn his castle to the ground, and free the people living under his tyranny. That's a definite "win" in my book, but he can still survive to regroup and return another day :) Escaping from certain death (sometimes under mysterious circumstances) is a trait many villains have had for a long, long time... (it's also very, very different to "I swing" "eh, you miss anyway")
Um, no. No, everyone does not cheat.It sets a nasty precedent and drops the level of trust between players and GM drastically. Do you allow your players to cheat if its "just this once"?I have watched players "nudge" their dice, "miscalculate" bonuses, utilize feats/skills/spells/powers/etc they should not have access to, and many myriad other versions of cheating...
Everyone cheats.
It is just a matter of how often and how blatant.Yep. I do not cheat as a player, ever. Why? Because I am no longer 14 and obsessed with winning at all costs.
See my post expanding on what I meant by that...
Maybe it is just that I have grown cynical in my dotage; But It is my view.
We all cheat.
Or perhaps I should have said...
We have all cheated at one point or another. (it is human nature).
Uhmm... No... Just no.
In fact, not just no. But an emphatic HELL NO!
I was half agreeing with you up until this point. I play this game to have fun and relax. If having fun and relaxing requires that I cheat against my friends, I need to find another hobby.
Yes, I know players that do that. They are not welcome at my table. There has been exactly one that I couldn't just dismiss from the table because I didn't want friendships to implode.
If you can only have fun by cheating, we can pull out the munchkin decks and have a good time.
Just a couple of nights ago, my oracle rolled a '2' on his save vs a symbol of death. Even with having used a hero point on the roll he failed. So I used my fortune ability to re-roll. I got a '1' so he is dead since you can't use more hero points on the same roll.
The GM wanted to fudge the roll to keep him alive. I refused. I want their to be in-game consequences for not being sufficiently careful and taking precautions or just plain bad luck.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Back to what we were talking about "GM fudging rolls", I think part of the issue is what you said at the beginning and what you said later don't match.
You started with 'I do it all the time when ever it seems like it will make the story better.' This upset people.
Later you backed off to only occasionally when necessary to keep the story going.
That's a pretty big difference. If you had started with the second, I don't think you would have gotten as strong of a reaction.
If you really do it all the time at your whim, then yes you are invalidating their characters/choices/experience to tell your story. I probably wouldn't play at your table because I wouldn't feel like my PC made any difference. I would just be sitting watching you tell a story and contributing a bit of dialogue every so often. To me that isn't fun (though there are some people that like it).
If you really only do it every once in a while in a critical situation to stop a story wreck, that is different. A case can be made either way for or against. It is not my preferred way to game and I try to avoid it when I can. But I am not the greatest of GM's and I fully admit that I have done it a couple of times. Usually when I did a poor job of designing an encounter. I am not going to penalize the group because of my mistake.
The players know ahead of time I have that option (rarely taken, but it's there) and have agreed to it. If they say they don't like it, I will certainly not do it.
In a game based on rolling dice the results of the rolls should be sacrosanct. Fudging the occasional roll here or there may benefit "the story" at the cost of the integrity of the game being played.
Adapt the encounters to account for player abilities or ban certain things but fudging dice is a slippery slope that can result in the GM deciding outcomes rather than letting the dice decide, as intended.
Let's not get ridiculous here. As GM, my dice rolls are just as subject to my editorial review as anything else that comes from my side of the screen whether it's a monster's modifier, an NPC's motivations, the length of a dungeon corridor, or the distribution of treasure.
So, yes, I will sometimes edit the dice. I rarely do it in favor of the NPCs, though, because I generally don't need to. Usually, I edit in the favor of the PCs because I don't want a good roll on my part to spoil a well-laid plan on their part. So when, after an initial failed attempt, the witch with her crystal ball connives to have a personal item stolen from her quarry so she can scry him better, I'm going to reward that with success even if his saving throw was a success.
I had a humorous experience on the boards. I was running my first PbP and a player asked if I adjusted the initiatives so he was always near the bottom!
I realized that, he meant with the edit ability, I adjusted the order of initiative to keep the most capable damage dealer out of the fight.
I told him no, he could roll his next ten initiatives and I would use them. It had turned out he was near the bottom in a string of eight rolls over and over.
No, I didn't fudge the order and yes, improbable events happen. I think the roulette wheel hit the same color like eighty times in a row once. And, ironically, the house cleaned up because everyone kept betting the other way. Does eighty blacks in a row happen often? no only one in more than two to the eightieth power times.
|
I see no problem with occasional fudging. The trick is, to paraphrase a futurama quote,
'If you do it right, they'll never know you were involved at all.'
I've seen DMs sit behind screens with big grins who don't even roll the die (for the sound it makes) and tell me what happens.
As a DM I fudge occasionally, but there's the far more irritating thing. When I'm rolling fair and am genuinely on a hot-streak, and end up nerfing myself so it doesn't look like I'm fudging too much. :/
I see your point. I think I will just have an honest conversation in private and tell him my concerns. As has been pointed out, my perception of the probabilities may be skewed somewhat. It might be best if I collect some data at the next session to see what is actually occurring rather than just guesstimating.I've had the exact same issue with my DM. My character was strongly involved in enchantment/compulsion spells and the DM saved about 70% of the time.
Personnaly, i would have been happy at 50% and I think the game should be good at that level.
Anyway, what I have done is I did an excel spredsheet where i noted each encounter that i had and each spell that i did with the spell DC and success rate. I did that for the later half of the game(starting at 8th). At the end i showed the dm my file and had a disccussion with him. H accepted it well since my complaint was based on facts. I even compared with the basic stats of monsters understanding that some bonus might have been added on the spot. But when you technically should have had 80% success rate and you got 30%, something is amiss...
I had something similar with one of my GM's. I made a SoS sorc and would have been happy with ending 30% of the encounters with a failed save. I was way under that. If I remember correctly, it was about 6%.
I was getting pretty peeved. Turned out to be legit though (at least with respect to dice rolls). That GM was just in love with templates on monsters. If the module was designed with a CR 9 creature, he would replace it with a similar CR 4 that had 3-5 templates on it. Almost every template seemed to give a save bonus, immunity, SR, or whatever. Many of them also ended up making a hash of what we thought was the poor save so I would be targeting the creatures best save.
Instead of a normal stone giant we might face a feral, insectoid, fiendish bugbear
So my caster that was supposed to be ending encounters was actually being a pretty poor version of a buff caster.
So he wasn't fudging rolls, but the argument could be made that he shouldn't use so many template monsters. I think the better choice though would have been for us to have some way to learn more about the monsters. If I had some way to at least sometimes find what the new worst save is or what it now had immunities to, that would have been something I could have dealt with even though it would have still been challenging.
"Let's not get ridiculous here. "
You may choose to edit your dice rolsl as a GM but to call my opinion that die rolls never be changed ridiculous, is ridiculous.
It's maybe a little ridiculous.
Try this on for size:
Players spend 2 hours creating characters. They all sit down. The GM weaves a cunning tale, everyone's into it, the first fight begins... and the very first hit kills one of the PCs. There's a good three hours of game time left.
In your position, that's just tough luck. That player has to sit out the rest of the session doing nothing (except maybe rolling a new character).
My perspective, as a GM, is that I have an obligation to that player to try to make the evening fun. Killing them first hit does nothing to help my game. You betcha I'm going to fudge that damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general I dont believe in dm fudging. Particulary not on saves. If you have a problem with save or suck spells taking down important enemies, deal with that option at character creation. Its fine to say to a player, hey the slumber hex can make encounters really anticlimactic, and mess with the work that I do. Could you maybe go a different direction with your character? I've done that before. And not just for casters, there are other things that can be an issue. If they are address them by allowing the player to change what is causing an issue.
It is simply not ok to invalidate a player choice because it inconveniences your story. Period. If you want to do that, have story time, dont be a dm. Or play a diceless game. But dont negate a player's choice without telling him its an issue. I played in a game once where the dm didnt like failing saves. When I realized what was going on I talked to him, and we worked out a new character for me. I'd FAR AND AWAY prefer to change my character, then have my actions in the big important encounter be meaningless. Because thats what you do when you fudge a save. You remove any meaning from what that character is doing that round. If you do it for most of what they do, you are whether you want to admit it or not, eliminating the importance of that character. Thats not ok and its bad dming.
In my campaign, I'd roll the dice out in public and behind the screen.
If the characters would know if the roll succeeded (i.e.: attack rolls, saving throws, damage rolls, etc.) then I made my rolls out in public view.
If the characters wouldn't know if the roll succeeded (i.e.: Sense Motive checks, Perception checks, etc.) ... "I just realized that I totally failed to notice that bugbear hiding in the grass." ... "I just realized that I totally failed to discern that you were lying to me." ... then I made my rolls behind the screen.
More often than not, I would roll, do the mental math, and simply call out "Hits AC 25" or "Saves DC 17". I'd wait for the player to tell me if the baddie hit, or saved, or whatever. It is quite possible that my players might have "fudged" it a few times, but I didn't care, as long as they were all having fun.
One downside is that as a GM, you can't fudge a roll to save a character. However, a big upside is that when a character actually DOES survive impossible odds, it is VERY impressive.
All in all, I think it really depends on the table. Some tables prefer the GM keep some secrets and fudge it here or there. Other tables want to know that the rules are the rules are the rules; they don't mind a character living or dying, so long as it was fair and square.
In my opinion, a GM should ask the players which play style they prefer and honor that choice. I think it makes for a much better game.