Wulf Ratbane's page

My players are min-maxers/rule lawyers. Thus, I borrow a page from Bad Axes Games' Traiblazer supp and multiple the Big Bad's hitpoints times the number of PCs while BB's lieutenants get double max. Keeps combat longer than one round. Oh, and both get templated up the wazoo...! (My own rule hehe....)

Just a quick warning there-- monsters that have a lot of "asymmetric" abilities won't need as much. A creature with an area-of-effect attack or save-or-die effect (or even worse, area-of-effect save-or-die effects...) already has some extra oomph. You might count these abilities as "One PC" in and of themselves.

So rather than multiply by x4 (for a party of four), try x3 or x2.

Finally, TB's author himself sometimes makes an appearance here on the boards to answer questions.

I am the author. I only visit the Paizo boards occassionally (when I get a heads-up from a regular here) but I am very accessible in our publisher forum at ENworld.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/bad-axe-games-hosted-forum/

Not that I won't answer questions here-- just that I keep an eye on our forums over there almost constantly. The wait time is less.

And while I have your attention - is there still plans for a sequel with new classes?

Yes.

But I've been spending my design time on Spells and Monsters.

(The "design weekend" in question was extra time I knew I'd have to jump around on such lesser priority projects.)

Any news on when/where we can pick up a print copy?!?

The "where" is Amazon, the "when," unfortunately, I cannot answer beyond, "ASAP."

When it's available, I'll announce it. I appreciate your interest and patience.

A book that denounces "players derailing the DM's story"

Your use of quotation marks there is likely to lead folks (such as myself) to wonder whom you are quoting.

I'm sure, however, that Trailblazer is going to be a BIG hit among the right crowd.

Aye. Folks who enjoy playing D&D.

You can quote me on that.

Still waiting for the promised free download. I will probably buy the hardcopy when it arrives tho.

If you're "still waiting" and you didn't get an email from me through Bad Axe Games, on the day it was released, then you did not have your email address turned on at RPGnow. (Just over 50% of those who downloaded the preview included their email address.)

Every person whose email address was set to show when they downloaded the preview has been contacted (and last time I checked about 90% of those downloaded their copy already).

Send me an email and I will send you a copy.

Give it time, perhaps "world's most popular role playing game" = new code for Pathfinder.

Yeah. Still in shock here.

Seriously? Come on.

I guess it's a matter of taste. I dislike class features, feats, etc. that boil down to "a tough NPC wants to hang out with you" (e.g. Leadership).

Ditto.

Definitely not a fan of getting rid of Animal companions. Also not fond of his two type of players argument.

Hmm. Because it does, or does not, generally describe your position? Or you just don't like for a designer to make assumptions about the players? You've certainly got my attention.

Because we make frequent, multiple assumptions about "typical play."

If your play experience is atypical as it compares to ours and our design philosophy, I doubt that you will find much to your tastes in Trailblazer.

That's a pretty typical risk for any game designer: I'll design what I feel is most applicable for the broadest audience, while accepting that I won't please everybody. No hard feelings on my part.

lol now I have questions about "base magic bonus" too lol...

Scroll to the top of the page that joela linked, and you should see a post explaining UNIFIED SPELL PROGRESSION.

EDIT: It occurs to me that I might have my pages flowing to a different standard. Here's the link:

Unified Spell Progression

At least rangers and paladins can buff and heal a little bit more in Trailblazer. I'd say it's a good way to balance them against the barbarian and fighter.

I think so, too. Thank you for saying so.

Also keep in mind that rangers and paladins are spellcasters from 1st level-- 0-level spells. At 2nd level, their caster level goes to +1 and they get their first 1st level spells. At 6th level, they get their first access to 2nd level spells (BMB +3). (The higher they go, the less "relevant" their spellcasting becomes, in terms of comparing their highest level spells to what the full casters are bringing to bear.)

This spellcasting ability makes a big difference at low levels in terms of overall party support. In our latest playtest, I find myself looking to the paladin for shield of faith, bull's strength, etc.

The paladin seems to be enjoying his expanded role.

Not really liking where this is going I mean getting the Druid spell list?

Did the paladin go under your radar? He got access to the whole cleric spell list.

Both paladins and rangers have a 1/2 caster level progression, meaning they start with 0-level spells at 1st level.

Just want to make sure you have a chance for equal opportunity nervousness.

(It's also relevant to assessing the rebalanced classes.)

Ah, then Block isn't as good as I thought. In that case, you're probably better off using the Dodge reaction most of the time (unless your foe has an ungodly attack bonus).

Actually, if you prefer to play the DPS game, block will usually be the statistically superior choice, especially if you use a tower/magic shield.

Not that I advocate such an approach... however... =)

I put this together quickly with a standard, "Natural Roll Needed vs. DPS" spreadsheet.

1) Determine how much you can dodge. If you can dodge for a +1 bonus on a d20 roll, that's 5%. If you can dodge for a +10 bonus on a d20 roll, that's 50%.

2) Now figure out how much you can block. If you can dodge for +1, then you can block for +1; or, DR5 with a tower shield.

If 5 > (5%) of the attacker's average damage then you're better off blocking. That's true regardless of what natural number on the die the opponent needs. The opponent would need to do in excess of 100 damage to make dodging the statistically superior play. In every other case, the attacker's DPS is lower if you block.

Let's look at this another way. Say the opponent hits you on a 2+, or 95% of the time. If his average damage is 10 points, his DPS is 9.5. If you dodge (+1), then his DPS goes down to 90%, or 9 points. If you block instead, his DPS stays at 95%, but you'll take 5 points off it, dropping from 9.5 damage to 4.5 damage.

3) Let's look at a very high level fighter, BAB+20. You can dodge/block for +10; that's 50% dodging, and DR14 with a tower shield. If 14 > (50%) of the opponent's average damage then you are better off blocking. If the creature does 28 points of damage or less, you should block.

Let's say the opponent does 40 damage. If he hits you on a 2+ (95%), his DPS is 38. If you dodge (+10), now he needs a 12+ to hit you, that DPS drops from 95% to 45%, or 18 points.

Meanwhile if you'd just blocked (DR14) the original 2+ attack, the DPS drops from 38 to 24 points. In this case, dodge is better.

The "break point" is 28 points. (50% x 28 = DR14).

Feel free to correct my math.

I'm personally more of a gambler: This analysis is fine over the long haul, but combats often don't last long enough to make gambling on "long term" trends "feel" like the better play. You dodge one big attack and take no damage = you feel like a winnah.

But then I'm also a proponent of "All Power Attack, All the Time." ;)

Don't get me wrong -- I like the idea of treats for shield-users!

By the way, does the Block combat reaction get declared before or after the attack hits? If it has to be declared before the attack hits, then it's not as good as I'm thinking. But if it's after, DR 10+ sounds pretty good to me!

We declare both blocks and dodges before the attack roll is made-- or, at least, before the result is announced. Sometimes there's a little excited overlap between what the DM is doing on his "turn," and giving the players a chance to respond. (Try not to step on the players' toes during your own turn, because keeping them actively engaged when it is your turn is the point of combat reactions.)

If you're a big softie, you could certainly allow blocks to be made after the hit is announced. It's an easy change to make and wouldn't crash your game.

But the idea is that the player of the fighting man will watch his opponents, assess his threats, and announce something on the order of, "I will dodge the dragon's bite," or "I will block the ogre's club." (Before the attack roll.)

It's a benefit for being attentive and proactive.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

same here it is only a tax if you MUST have it to do your classes normal functions...Hide and move silently for a rogue, but they have 8 skills just so they can do that.

I've seen non-sneaky rogues before, too.

The only real "tax" I can think of is the Perform skill for bards; if you don't take it, you lose a class feature completely.

Bards/Perform is the poster child.

I don't think even Hide/Move Silently rises to the same level as Concentration for spellcasters, or PA for barbarians/fighters.

Trapfinding is always useful, so Search/Disable is more important to me. Unfortunately in many campaigns, skill points in Stealth are wasted: either the rest of the party insists on coming along with you, ruining your stealth, or the wizard does it better anyway.

Quite frankly I think Power Attack should just be a combat option, like fighting defensively. IIRC it was implemented as such in Iron Heroes.

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:

I definitely like the combat reactions idea...*YOINK!*

I'd still recommend playtesting that DR option, though.

We wouldn't want to encourage anyone to use shields, now would we? ;)

BAB 1-5, one reaction. That's one attack blocked, for DR4-6. That's a nice chunk compared to most non-magical weapons at this level.

BAB 6-10, two reactions. Up to two attacks blocked, for DR7-9 each; DR9-11 if his shield is +2.

BAB 11-15, three reactions. Up to three attacks blocked, for DR9-11; DR13-15 if the shield is +4.

BAB 16-20, four reactions. Up to four attacks blocked, for DR12-14 each; DR17-19 if the shield is +5.

I still think that the dodge reaction is the better choice; I can't imagine using all my reactions to block and not leaving at least one reaction to dodge.

Still... Meaningful choices for the melee classes.

Clearly they and I have very different ideas on what counts as a feat tax. Since getting the ability to do a ton of extra damage very easily is hardly what I would call a tax.

Anything that's nominally optional, but is in fact an assumed requirement for the class. It says, "If you want to be useful, you must have this." It's choice denied.

Concentration is a skill tax on spellcasters-- despite the fact that it gives them the ability to cast spells in combat without provoking an attack of opportunity.

I don't think Power Attack rises to quite the same level of necessity, but it's close in terms of ubiquity.

I loved the GM Day preview back whenever, but to be honest I wish Wulf had a real website/blog instead of piggybacking on ENWorld - it seems cheap and I just don't like ENWorld (look-n-feel).

Hey! I resent that. I'm not cheap. I'm lazy.

But really, ENworld is where I find the traffic that I want and, more importantly, the conversation. ENworld is my home. It's where I started. Even if I bothered to run forums from my site, I'd still spend more time at ENworld.

I remember them from back with Slavelords of Cydonia - they've got the right stuff.)

Thank you.

Lots of good ideas in this thread.

Dispel Magic as written has two main problems:

1) It's too good.
2) It's a pain to adjudicate.

Folks are well on their way here with #2 but #1 is being overlooked in my opinion.

Dispel Magic is a debuff. Both in terms of "economy of actions" as well as in terms of "spell slot vs. spell slot" it is quite simply too good NOT to use.

All other debuffs have a fixed value: -1, -2, -4 etc.

Dispel Magic has a variable value and it gets more and more powerful based on how much the opponent has leveraged his own buffs.

Dispel Magic would still be worth using even if its function was reduced to counterspelling or dispelling one spell.

Lisa Stevens wrote:

Hey y'all:

My biggest beef with 3.5 is high level play also. I ran my Shackled City campaign until 16th level and it actually had me in tears at one point I was so frustrated.
-Lisa

Lisa, what was frustrating you so much? The number of options available? The adjudication of complicated rules? spells? Astronomical numbers?...

I have to second this.

Can't work up a solution without knowing exactly what the problem is.

Is it:

1) Creating high-level NPCs?

2) Creating engaging scenarios that are immune to high-level game-breakers? (Scry-Buff-Teleport, Find the Path, Commune, Resurrection)?

3) High level combat? (Save or die? Buffs and debuffs?)

And finally-- is it safe to say that most of the problems with high level play are on the DM side of the screen?

Jason--

I'd also like to take a look at this in parallel with you. Once again it dovetails a lot of what I have been working on extensively. (Pretty much if it involves CR/EL/XP I am deep in it.)

For the most part your data here seems good, but could you tell me how you arrived at the numbers you have? That would help me to interpret your results.

Have you looked at Ryan Stoughton's statistical analysis of 3e creatures?

Also, I think you should extend your charts to CR24 or CR25-- solo creatures for 20th level PCs must come from that echelon.

I don't like the "incredible deed" idea though; I hate having a bunch of various 1/day abilities to keep track of.

Monte has several spells that I like a lot, his various Mark of XXX, that have a persistent (and long lasting) buff effect. However, you can "burn" the spell to create an instantaneous effect that ends the spell regardless of remaining duration.

For example, the Mark of Fire gives you +2 DEX for 1 hour/level, but you can "burn" the spell for a 3d6 ranged fire blast.

It sounds like he is describing something along those lines-- and if not, it would be easy enough to revise. The book-keeping is thus very easy-- if the buff is active, you haven't used the special effect; if you use the special effect, the buff goes away.

Moreover, certainly one can't hope that any revision will fix everything, but the idea of bashing someone who comes with clear problem definitions while it's still in time to solve every single one of them's literally ruinously stupid.

Obviously we have very different definitions of what constitutes a clear problem, and what is literally ruinously stupid.

Would the playtest go more smoothly if one side or the other just shut up, or is there room for debate?

What's your position on "The Shadow Over the Sun" and "The Difference Engine?"

Big problems? A lot of your 3.5 games come crashing down when the evil PC cleric infected himself with lycanthropy in order to quickly advance to 11th level so that he could build an army of shadow butterflies to blot out the sun?

Mostly my time was concerned with statting up high level NPCs, so I mainly hope that Paizo can fix that and a few other real concerns, but I suppose everyone's experience is different.

I'd hardly call that working on an error or problem in the rules - its more like providing a helpful hand for your (or your DMs) common sense.

There will always be those who abdicate common sense in slavish devotion to the rules.

That is the central theme of parodies like Munchkin.

(If you look at Munchkin as an indictment of the rules, and not your own playstyle, you've seriously missed the point.)

Such folk cannot be helped by any ruleset (for its faults and failings will always be winnowed out, no matter how obscure-- see "Actual Broken Stuff").

At some point they have to help themselves.

I love how someone brings up a real problem and gets shouted down by people saying "That's what a dm is for!".

Let me revise my remarks.

Fixed XP awards ARE a real problem, and situations where the average party level so far outweighs the power of their opponents, regardless of their numbers, should absolutely be addressed by the mechanics. Frank is right.

Frank is wrong in that PCs "dinging" a level by dropping cloudkill on a village is a "real problem."

Frank is wrong that the possibility of shadow butterflies taking over the world is a "real problem."

It is possible to provide mechanics to fix these problems, and well Paizo should, but they should not worry themselves too much about ferreting out every munchkin wet dream and making sure it's specifically addressed in the rules.

whether its a village of commoners or a tribe of ogres (ogi?) the basic deal is the same, by having undermatched opponents still give xp, considering the great power of higher level stuff, its much easier to pick on those creatures, than to face level equivalent challenges.

Then don't provide them such challenges to pick on, don't allow them time to pick such challenges, or simply don't give them any experience points if they do.

Does that really need to be codified in the rules?

Well, ok, there you have it. Two lines of text, tops, to pacify the rules lawyer mob.

I take it that you never played AD&D?

Let's just say that the Munchkin card "Boil an Anthill (Go Up One Level)" is in there for a reason. The 3rd edition scaling XP system is complicated, but it was put in there for a reason to solve real problems that real people really had.

-Frank

Yes, I did play AD&D.

And that Munchkin card is in there as A PARODY OF PLAYERS LIKE YOU.

Why not add that "sensible ad hoc ruling" to the rules in the first place?

Because you just don't need to idiot-proof every possible anal retentive contingency that the rules lawyers can dream up. It's far easier to expect the DM to exercise some judgment.

I really don't need the rules to tell me that dropping cloudkill on a village should not "ding" the players up a level.

I don't need the rules to tell me that you can't wish for more wishes, or that you can't make an army of undead shadow butterflies to blot out the sun and take over the world.

Also, I'm not jazzed about people being able to cast cloud kill at villages and ding a level. A 15th level party should have essentially nothing to fear from 20 Ogres, so giving them 4,000 XP out of the deal seems unwarranted.

I gather from this and other of your posts (ie, "Actual Broken Stuff") that making a sensible ad hoc ruling as a DM is something you prefer not to do.

If you tire of DMing you could make a good career as a public school administrator.

Knowing that many of your resources refresh after 10-minutes rest makes it feel more like an action movie.

Thanks for the compliment. ;)

I'll be curious to see if my read on Paizo is correct and that they favor the older style with its longer required rest period.

Judging from the alpha, there's no doubt in my mind that they are much closer to your style than to mine.

Fortunately my "fix" is completely compatible with anything they intend to do. Much easier to add it later, than to pull something like this out of the guts of the game. (Same with Action Points.)

Every single one?

Well, as I said, the answer is a qualified YES. Yes, because my game time is limited. Once I get 6 "adults" gathered around the game table on a weeknight and all the b*!+@+!#ting out of the way, I can either have one good combat or two forgettable ones. It's an easy choice.

As a preference, there's nothing wrong with that, but it runs counter to the assumptions behind D&D. Resource management on a strategic scale is important to the feel of the game. If most resources "reset" with each encounter, then there's very little need to manage them. Wizards can freely blow all their best spells every encounter and there are no consequences to such behavior, whereas in standard D&D this would be considered short-sightedness on par with downing one of only a few available healing potions anytime your character's hit points were below 100%.

The steady attrition of encounters, including random ones, is part of the calculus of dungeon delving.

I'm sensitive to that style of play.

First, I think it's important to note that what I have presented does not reset resources after every encounter. They reset after a successful 10 minute rest.

I'll repost here my answer to a friend who's helping me hone my thoughts on this:

If rage refreshes every rest, then every fighter or rogue I ever build WILL have 1 level of Barbarian.

I think, as Paizo has noted, that's the fault of the fighter and the rogue. There's simply no reason not to diverge from fighter or rogue, because there isn't a lot waiting for them at higher levels. But I'm not sure why you wouldn't do this now, anyway. The rest mechanic doesn't really change the relative usefulness of rage-- it's on the same par as any other existing per day mechanic-- smite, spells, etc.

Is it possible that you will have overpowered things more than you think?

It's possible, but my thinking is that it is only a power boost in the context of the necessity to rest, or not, and for how long. There is nothing inherently more powerful about any class under this structure-- if anything, spellcasters are a bit less powerful under this structure as compared to everyone else, because their demands on Reserve Points are higher.

Nothing about this boosts PC powers within the context of a single encounter. They have gained nothing.

They have only gained with respect to the amount of time it takes them between encounters to return to full capacity. As the DM, if that's a problem, it is my responsibility to harry them on the 10 minute clock, just exactly the same as it would be to harry them on the 1 day clock.

Let's say you build your fighter under existing 3e rules, and you dip into barbarian. In the first fight, you use your rage. Now you convince the rest of the party to retreat for the day and come back tomorrow. It takes 2 minutes of "table time" and you have your rage again, and all the spellcasters have all their spells again, and everyone is all healed up. The players are ecstatic, happy-- and a bit smug. Assume that's the status quo in 3e.

What are my options as a DM?

How do my options change under a 10 minute rest structure, instead of a full day rest structure?

In the end, the 10 minute rest structure only changes the amount of in-game time that passes between such rests as I choose to allow. I find the continuity of the game is much improved if only 10 game minutes pass between such rests, as opposed to a full day.

Reserve Points (or Action Points, as I prefer) continue to press on the players as an important resource to be managed. There are still "errors" to be made in resource allocation and expenditure to be exploited. Even given essentially unlimited opportunities to snatch 10 minutes of rest, the PCs feel the real danger of resources being whittled down, as it requires a steady supply of Reserve Points to return to full capacity.

Others may disagree, Paizo included, but I see the 15-minute adventuring day as a feature, not a bug and find most solutions, this one included, to treat encounters as standardized set piece battles. 3e does this too much already as it stands for my taste.

(This is James Maliszewski, yes?)

I can't deny that.

I prefer my encounters to be dramatic affairs. I want more monsters in every encounter, and I want them to feel like knock-down, drag-out fights. I would much rather run one encounter that seriously tasks the PCs, than to run 3 throwaway encounters that serve no purpose other than to whittle the PCs down for the 4th "real" encounter. By the time I get to the proper "set pieces" most of my gaming time has been eaten up with the forgettable combats. Essentially, there is a good chance I'll have to stop each 3 hour gaming session at the cliffhanger, and pick it up next session-- which would be fine, if we played more often than once every two weeks.

Oh, and this is important too: I want to be able to assume that the PCs are going to be fresh so that the CR/EL system is accurately predictive of the outcome.

Wulf Ratbane wrote:

Good stuff

Wow, this is great. Have you been using it in your games? Do the PCs like the increased productivity during the day?

Yes, we have been using it in our games-- first in a quick 6th level Rappan Athuk playtest, but most recently in a new 1st level campaign set in DDO's Stormreach. (If you play DDO, you will know what I mean when I say that I am running them through Waterworks and Shan To Kar.)

As I said above, we use it in conjunction with Action Points (not simply Reserve points) but the concept works the same. I personally think APs are a little more important balancing mechanism, since the melee types tend to want to spend their APs on attack rolls and casters not so much; and casters need to spend their APs during rests, and melee types not so much.

The current group has no cleric and does not seem at all the worse for it. Clerics are still important as healers, but much more so during combat than afterwards. Unlike 4e, I do not allow every class access to healing during encounters-- only afterwards, and only after a successful rest period. Clerics will save your butt in a tough fight but aren't at all necessary as a healing battery between encounters.

You should try building a sorcerer using this variant, and paying attention to your spell selection. It is eye-opening with regards to Simple/Complex spells.

Put me in the column of people who don't find the so-called 15 minute adventuring day a problem. Indeed, for me, it's a feature of D&D and always has been. More to the point, v.3.5 is structured around it and, unless Paizo didn't really mean it when they said they wanted Pathfinder to be backward compatible, making the changes necessary to "fix" it would be difficult.

I firmly believe that the rules should support the way the game is actually played. In my experience, 3e plays like this:

• By second level, the PCs have purchased a wand of cure light wounds.
  
• Given 5 minutes, they can completely empty any wand and bring everyone back to full health.
  
• The PCs do everything possible to enter every fight at full hit points, if not necessarily at full ability.
  
• The cost of the cure wand (of applicable strength for the party level) simply becomes a tax on the PCs wealth.
  
• PCs will stop adventuring rather than continue in a sub-optimal state.
  
• The CR system is most accurate when the party is at their full capacity.
  
• Published adventures almost always go "off script" because the PCs retreat at unexpected times. My options as a DM are to allow it-- which means suddenly accounting for the passage of 1 day-- or to find some excuse to prevent them from retreating.
  

Here is my fix, which I believe is eminently backwards compatible:

10-minute Rest Period

• A “rest period” is 10 minutes of uninterrupted rest, to include no more than conversation and light activity.

• All character abilities that were previously granted “per day” are instead granted “per rest.” This includes rage, smite, etc. as well as spellcasting (see below).

• All players receive a number of “Reserve Points.” (In our campaign, we use Action Points, but I’ll replace this term here since Action Points come with their own set of baggage.) Set this number as desired: ½ character level, for example. You can also award additional Reserve Points for good play, reaching milestones, etc.

• You can, instead, use a "Party Reserve Points" pool. All PCs spend from the same pool of Reserve Points, so it becomes a group decision how best to manage those resources.

• All abilities are refreshed once every 24 hours, at no cost of Reserve points. (In other words, always at least as often as the current system allows.)
  

After a successful rest period, at no cost of Reserve Points:

• All “per rest” abilities are refreshed.
  
• All characters heal an amount of hit points equal to 50% of their normal hit point total.
  
• All Simple spells are refreshed. (see below).
  
• Any ongoing spell effects on your person are dispelled when your rest is complete, regardless of any duration they may have remaining. (This does not apply to spells with instantaneous or permanent durations.)
  

• A character can recover an additional amount of hit points equal to 50% of their normal hit point total (which will restore any character to full hit points).
  
• All Complex spells are refreshed. (see below).
  
• You may refresh one Exotic spell per Reserve Point spent.
  

• Simple spells include:
  All 0 level spells.
  Any single target spell with a duration of 1 min/level or less.

• Complex spells include:
  Any area of effect or multiple-target spell.
  Any spell with a duration of 10 minutes/level or longer.
  Any Conjuration (creation, calling, or teleport).

• Exotic spells include:
  The big three gamebreakers: Divination/Commune, Raise Dead, Teleport
  “Edge case” spells that create permanent goods (water, food, iron) at the DM’s discretion.
  

For me, this was rarely to never a problem. When it was, the solution was to put the players on the clock.

You’ll typically find PCs in one of two cases:

In the first case, the PCs are in a situation where there is no real rationale for pressuring them (such as exploring a largely abandoned tomb full of undead or golem guardians that are not inclined to pursue). If the PCs are able to retreat and rest overnight without being unduly harried, then I would just as soon get them back into the action after a short rest.

In fact I’ve found that most of my players, once they are forced to retreat and rest for a full day, will find all sorts of other things to do with their time besides getting back to the adventure I intended for them.

In the second (and more common) case, the PCs are engaged in some predicament that is “alive” and “responsive.” But in this case, too, I prefer the 10 minute rest period. It is much easier for me, as a DM, to look to the adventure and determine what the bad guys will do with 10 minutes to prepare—to cast spells, to hunt the PCs down, to organize defenses—than it is for me to lay out their plans given almost an entire day. Again, I’d rather the PCs were harried on a 10-minute clock than on a full day clock.

(As an aside, as a result of this change, I’ve started using Wandering Monsters again, and I’ve simply put the check on a 10 minute timer. The PCs are never sure of getting a 10 minute rest.)

Petrification. I actually think this should remain the same. It is a fairly easily removable condition by the levels it starts showing up in.

3rd? (Cockatrice)

5th? (Basilisk)

7th? (Medusa)

A generalization don't want dice-orgies interrupting my / or my palyers narrations... (please no "it is just one save for the player...I hear this several times and another roll and another roll is two rolls, etc.- guess you know what i mean). perhaps a save per minute is better?

I suppose the last thing we want is for the player who has been hosed to remain engaged in the game, with a chance to save every time his action comes up.

Better to banish him to the couch than interrupt your game with that orgy of 1 die rolling. Who needs that kind of chaos?

If you read the designers' articles on WotC website a few years back, you'll see that Save or Die basically means "any time the outcome of one die roll takes the PLAYER out of the game for hours on end". So, see also: Confusion, Dominate Monster, et al.

Yes, I know, although I like the current appellation: "Save or Suck."

I, personally, hate these. These effects basically mean that the player's choice is to sit around and watch everyone else play D&D for the rest of the night or head home early.

Fear is near the top of my list to be "fixed." Because fear requires the victim to run away, it basically gets double duration: you spend X rounds running away from the fight, and X rounds running back.

My fix for Fear (and this would include Turning) is simple: You move away from the source of your fear for the first round only, and then you cower for the remaining duration.

To chime in on this thread I too like the concept of replacing dead with dying. It fixes the problem with the least amount of toying with existing rules and keeps instant death spells as potent effects.

IMO it's not a satisfactory solution because the problem with Save or Die effects encompasses more than just "death."

It doesn't work for Flesh to Stone, Baleful Polymorph, or stunning blast-- three fairly common effects that are all "as good as dead," but would really make no sense if you just applied "dying" to them.

It may be that these effects are at least "reversible" and so the impact on campaign continuity is much less than with death. If your concern is only campaign continuity, I suppose it works. But that's a DM P.O.V.

From the players' side, the problem isn't so much one of campaign continuity as it is "failing one saving throw and being left out of the fun for the evening."

You could replace death effects with dying; and then, as a second stroke at the problem, anything that could conceivably be "shaken off" should get a new save every round (a la Hold Person). As a DM and a player I can easily visualize a PC 'shaking off' the effects of even a flesh to stone and returning to heroic form.

I also love Save or Die (and more or less to the same degree, "Save or Suck" like fear and stun) and hate to see them go.

Our "fix" for save or die was to allow the target TWO saving throws against the effects, unless the target is at 50% hit points or below (aka bloodied).

A target below 50% hit points receives one save, as normal.

This generally keeps Save or Die from opening, and ending, a given combat.

From the DM side of the screen, certain creatures (like the cockatrice or medusa mentioned above) just play as they always have, but the PCs don't feel quite as threatened until they're whittled down a bit.

It's a quick and easy fix that is eminently backwards compatible.

5+1/2 character level is too much. I say 3 per level, perhaps with the ability for DMs to give a point for heroic deeds.

5 + 1/2 level isn't added to your total each time-- it's a refresh.

It's actually much less than 3/level.

To the OP: Action Points are an excellent mechanic, for no other reason than adding another layer of resource management to the game.

What you can actually DO with an action point is up for debate and I expect folks will differ widely on that point.