Daniele Mariani's page

***WARNING: HERE BE RAMBLINGS***

First I'll say, that it is not the occasional rolling of a 1 with the result of death that I mind. What I mind is that with tons of rolling, those 1s actually come up pretty often.

I frankly find it impossible, both as a DM and as a player, to agree on making such situations (multiple STs) simply not going to happen, or to make one player roll only against one effect and call it a day. The obstacle of multiple minor threats is going to come out sooner or later, and (sorry for repeating myself) it all comes down to the type of game you want to play, as the issue itself can be addressed on a theoretical level: yes, those rolls are going to come up pretty often, but are we discussing about the metagame "sucking" of actually picking up the dice and rolling every time an archer hits you (more than legitimate, as it can slow the game to a crawl) OR the in-game ability of a character to simply being immune to certain effects by virtue of a high ST modifier, no matter the degree of exposion (multiple Bodaks)? This is not a moot point.

-----
First Case: the problem are the rolls "per se" -but dice rolls are always needed, that's what D&D is about. The best I can say is that an encounter which requires constantly making multiple STs turn-after-turn-after-turn is definitely bad game designing, no matter the actual chances of surviving. If the 16 Bodak's gaze had a DC different enough to make the save actually worth something, the metagame annoyance would be the same (granted, it would be an unfair fight!).
In this sense, there is no simple solution: you could rule that a character makes STs against identical special attack only once in a round, but then the problem remains when faced with Bodaks & Medusas (with different effects and different DCs). You could rule that gaze effects can only be performed as an active attack, but the problem rears its ugly head again when 10 different sorcerers cast 10 different Fireballs with 10 different DCs on 10 different kobolds with 10 different ref saves -then again, it's bad game designing but not an actual game flaw. MAYBE the most funtional thing to do would be to completely re-design the ST concept into an attack-like roll (non-sentient effects, like poison, "take 10") against AC-like Fort, Ref and Will stats -hey, I said "functional", not "easy" ;)
----
Second Case: the problem is not the inherent moltitude of rolls to be made but the constant presence of a 5% chance of failure (which, of course, a moltitude of rolls is going to bring about sooner or later, but I'm discussing principles here).
Thanks to save-or-die spells and effects, high level PCs are constantly threatened with death by poor rolling -but we're now discussing the actual uselessness of the roll. I could try to be funny and propose to dump the "one always fails" rule but raise the, say, massive death DC to 25, as to make the Fort save actually meaningful. Of course, that would not solve the problem, would it? ;) The same goes for the countless poisons, Harm, Disintegration and Finger of Death that PCs usually have thrown at them over their entire career.
If people don't like the idea of continously rolling saves that are arithmetically already done, just increase the DC by 10 and let them enjoy the thrill of the roll. Again, I'm joking: obviously it's not the annoyance of doing something whose outcome it's already decided that's the problem -which instead lies in the fallacy about a percieved "right to invulnerability" due to a high save modifier. There is no way out of this either, short of dumping the critical failure rule (whose ramifications include -but are not limited to- players doing their math, stare at medusas and be petrified thanks to a marginally higher-than-usual DC & general Improved Evasion/Mettle invulnerability) OR coming out with some crazy houseruling like "no auto fail on 1 IF you have the good ST progression".
---
Closing argument & modest proposal
(thanks for your patience, I'll send you a turkey for christmas):
the "1-fails" rule has a rationale and a reason to exist in-game, but that does not mean that every player or DM is bound to like it, as it makes for a more gritty, realistic campaign EXPECIALLY at high levels. Gaming groups looking for a more heroic kind of play can dump it at any level they like, be it the 20th or the first, though it is an act bound to have its fair share of implications. It's a gaming choice.
If it's the sheer quantity of practically useless rolls that frightens you, my advice is to make any ST with a modifier equal or higher than [DC-1] always succeed, and turn failure into an auto-effect that triggers the 20th time any character is affected by an "auto-success DC" effect of the same save type. Reset time can vary from 1 day to 1 round, according to DM's mercy & style of play.

Ever played high-level DnD? 50+ Damage is common. Fighters don't get in the Massive Damage situation very often due to the half max HP cap for massive damage.

Well, first of all I wasn't aware of said cap. I think it was introduced in Pathfinder, however, and doesn't seems like a good idea: massive damage threshould should be based on creature's size, not max HP. As I said , HPs track general damage, not body mass or a creature's inherent ability to withstand punishment.

On a second note, I do play high level games (currently a Waterdeep-based, Gray Hand lvl 18+ campaign) and say that 50 + damage being common doesn't seem a good reason for saying it's broken -PC survival seems to follow a bell curve. At low level, even a raging barbarian can be mowed down by a nasty critical or a bad fall. At high levels, buffs, spell-like abilities and SR make long, drawn-out battle a pure suicide: give a spellcaster or a tactically minded warrior time to prepare and it's game over right from the start; encounters should be approached with a blitzkrieg mentality. Allowing an enemy to REPEATEDLY hit you for 50+ damage (or poisoned arrows, Harm, Disintegration, Finger of Death or whatever) is not a calculated risk: it's poor planning.

But having to roll for massive damage every attack (!) in higher levels just bugs me.

Assume that the character automatically succedes at every ST, but also automatically fails every 20th.

Not only it adds another layer of realism, it is also a dandy rationale for the "5% fail" rule: no matter how sturdy you are, if you take HEAVY punishment SEVERAL times in a row, you're going to fall sooner or later. HP are fine for tracking general damage, but a localized hit with massive force is an entirely different matter -anything that can punch through two inches of stone in one blow must have a pretty bad effect on a human body. AC can help, DR can help -but once you get your ribcage crushed by a dragon sitting on you or have two feet of burning metal shoved in your guts, you know you can't take that much damage for long. ("long" being quantified as 20 times). The same thing goes for ST: Fortitude, Reflexes, Will, it doesn't matter. If you push your body or your mind too far, they will break. Your reflexes become too dull, your mind is too clouded, and your metabolism is too taxed to overcome that one last poison or disease.
You could call it a "gentleman's agreement" between players and GM: something that is statistically bound to happen 1 in 20 times happens EXACTLY as such, and it's all in the players best interest to keep it the last one out of twenty.

houstonderek wrote:

Again, this is a matter of taste. Some of us old school guys don't like nerf bats. Some younger players like more story based games where characters rarely die. And vice versa.

"Save Or Die" being a "badly flawed game mechanic" isn't axiomatic. It is a statement of a preferred playing style.

Just for the record, I started playing "Basic D&D" in 1979 (the B1 box) and AD&D 1E original printing in 1981. And it's because of my 1E experiences that I don't like "save or die" effects -- like having my high-level fighter drop dead from a high-level magic-user shapechanging into a nekkid nymph.

Then again, it IS a matter of taste.

I think the "1 always fails" rule was deliberatly implemented to make high-level characters somewhat less cocky, and also to give PC a minor (very, very, VERY minor) "last-resort" kind of edge against seemingly unbeatable monsters. The concept of "a constant 5% chance of failure" is not an inherent flawed mechanic, it's just a choice made from game designers for the aforementionend reasons.

Now that's funny...

I like whatever story comes up to grow organically, not according to some plan. When I'm 15th level, I want to feel like I survived, not that I ran a gauntlet of nerf bats.

If I know my character has little chance of dying if I do everything "right", because the guy or gal running the game thinks that random death is "unfair", dude, I'm bored to tears.

But that's just me, so take it for what it's worth: 2cp...

Amen, reverend.

I guess it all comes down to the gaming group's own view of "high power game". Some people believe that crossing a certain level threshold makes a character literally uber-human and thus able to, say, bathe in black lotus extrac without even the tiniest bit of fear. Peronally, I like the idea of high-level character still being able to fail a ST 1 out of 20 times: it makes for good roleplay, emphansizing a character's humanity and fallibility no matter what, making certains attacks (like poison and massive damage) deadly at every level and generally making PCs of 20th + level still be afraid of armies of enemies, be they Medusas or low-level Kobolds sorcerers.

The idea to implement Thieves' Cant as an actual language, not unlike Druidic sounds good. Of course, it would imply some things, like the existence, either now or in the past, of a world-spanning thieves' organization. And, if things get "planar", the explanation might get way out of hand.
But a "thieve's cant" could exist as an intuitive (every rogue can get it), yet incredibly complex (no decipher script or intelligence check whatsoever), written or sign-based code that allows a Rogue to communicate with anyone else who knows it. The "hidden conversation" thing becomes a sub-use of Bluff, while this thief code is able to convey much more information in a much more efficient way.
It would be a great "advanced talent", or maybe even a "rogue level check".

besides, it's allready been pointed out that you can enchant your clothing using the rules.

Huh?

Where has it been pointed out?

This might be a little off topic, but what if the paladin could be entirely remade as a [concept]-warrior?
The "Paladin" class gets very general powers, and gets a [concept] choice like the sorcerer's bloodline, which influences many of its class abilities [and maybe even class skilss and/or HD]. This way one could still have holy/unholy/axiomatic/anarchic "alignment" paladins, space for classic ideas [dragonriding knight], strange & interesting things [aberrant paladin of madness? dark knight fo shadow? *shudders*]

Daniele Mariani wrote:

You're wrong. Cloth cannot be "enchanted" becouse it's an object, not a creature. It can't even be targeted. :P

Unless of course the cloth is a "ragamoffyn" monster!

Of course. But common cloth does not have a Charisma score...

...or does it? It could explain a lot of things... a sock being able to tell the difference between itself and things that are not itself? *maniacal laughter* Behold! A new breed of golem is born!

Cloth cannot be enchanted because cloth is mindless -- "enchantment" is a school of magic, all of the spells of which are mind-affecting.

You're wrong. Cloth cannot be "enchanted" becouse it's an object, not a creature. It can't even be targeted. :P

The problem I have is it excludes players who choose like a Monk from getting a very nice armor property since they can't wear armor.

Example, Soulfire from book of exalted. Immunity from negative energy and death spells. Its a pretty awesome property to get, but monks are SOL.

Wizards too, and sorcerers. Would you then put the propety on bracers of armor instead? Or do they just not get the goods.

The problem here is with the Monk, not the Wizard. Arcane casters can don mithral twilight armor (I believe it was in PH2) and get away with it with only nonproficiency bonuses. It seems to me like a good trade-off.

Monks, however, are an entirely different matter.

It says "for the purpose of this spell".
Written as is, it sounds like cloth does not count as an armor for enchantment purposes (indeed, for any other), much like any object can be used as an improvised weapon but cannot be enchanted as one. Can a wizard cast Greater Magic Weapon on a beer mug? I usually tell my players that magical objects need a certain resonance between their nature and the powers one wants to instill (hence the "unusual body space" multiplyer in the DM guide), and certain combos (+1 humanbane brilliant energy mug) are, err... metaphysically impossible.
With that said, there are tunics and such that give an armor bonus to AC (Robe of the archmage springs to mind) and, according to Arms & Equipment Guide, they could theoretically improved with special abilities -but making a "normal" piece of clothing magical would require (IMO thoughts in random order):
Masterwork quality (as a piece of clothing)
Masterwork quality (as an armor)(stat-wise totally useless, but gives the item the "right vibe")
Creator has Craft Magic Armors (duh)
Creator has the Exotic Armor Proficiency feat in the appropriate cloth-armor type