|
"Random Template"
This can be applied to any corporeal monster. It represents no magical property on the part of the monster, but just seems like it would make playing more fun.
"SQ: When in combat with a random template monster, player characters roll 3d10 for attacks, 6d12 for saves, and 1d4 for broken fingernails. NPCs roll 4d4 for everything. Monsters die automatically on any attack roll of 2, 6, 8, or 18. Everyone with the Power Attack feat loses it if they hit, and have it replaced with the Monkey Grip feat."That's obviously a lot more extreme, but it's meant to illustrate what a mess it is when templates can be loaded with changes to the fundamental D20 rules. So, that having been addressed, I was thinking of something more along the lines of "Option 3:"...
Now you're just being silly. There's no way or reason to argue with faulty logic, so I wont even try.
true that templates do not dictate a finite amount of damage. But there's no reason that they can't.
All a template does is takes one costant about a creatures - and changes it around and breaks the norm with it to create something different.
Robert
All a template does is takes one costant about a creatures - and changes it around and breaks the norm with it to create something different.
Templates work within existing game mechanics though, they do not create new mechanics. (Damage Threshold)
EDITED to contain nothing. ;-)
Alas, this is probibly one of the more intelligent and well-written forum responses I have seen. :(
(And yes, I am serious.)
EDITED to contain nothing. ;-)Alas, this is probibly one of the more intelligent and well-written forum responses I have seen. :(
(And yes, I am serious.)
Heh... except for the fact that if he intended to delete the message there is an option to delete a message. It's sort of like "This Page intentionally left Blank".
Heh... except for the fact that if he intended to delete the message there is an option to delete a message. It's sort of like "This Page intentionally left Blank".EDITED to contain nothing. ;-)Alas, this is probibly one of the more intelligent and well-written forum responses I have seen. :(
(And yes, I am serious.)
I know this. :)
There's no way or reason to argue with faulty logic, so I wont even try.
The example, as noted, was intentionally extreme, but the logic is sound. I'm not just trying to be a dick or anything. Templates change monsters within the existing rules system; I don't feel that they should be applied to change the basic D20 rules, nor the fundamental way that the game is played.
As a means of streamlining play, I like your suggestion very much, and I can definitely see using it for minion-type monsters, but I can't agree that it should be wired into a template; that sets a bad precedent, it's bad practice, and it's an error in design.
|
|
All a template does is takes one costant about a creatures - and changes it around and breaks the norm with it to create something different.Templates work within existing game mechanics though, they do not create new mechanics. (Damage Threshold)
Fair enough. Threshold was a concept that came later; I admit I like its simplicity; but most people in favor of the idea of the minion 'template' idea suggested minimum hit points for that creature. Which would not introduce a new mechanic.
If that notion of the threshold breaks the ability for one to accept the template then I'll concede that min hit points is a better option in that case.
However, I do recall the mob template having new rules of implementation that superceded the pre-existing known mechanics in the way it deals and receives damage, etc that were defined and described within the template's narrative.
Robert
However, I do recall the mob template having new rules of implementation that superceded the pre-existing known mechanics in the way it deals and receives damage, etc that were defined and described within the template's narrative.
Nothing new; they're merely an extension of the existing swarm mechanics from the SRD -- but I can see your point.
Do you and I at least see eye to eye on special attacks?|
|
Nothing new; they're merely an extension of the existing swarm mechanics from the SRD -- but I can see your point.
Do you and I at least see eye to eye on special attacks?
I have always been eye to eye with you on the special attacks. I have said since day one that the minions should not be ones that have special attacks.
I have habitually used minotaurs, orcs, ogres, and stone giants only as examples for these.
Never wraiths, basilisks, beholders, or balors.
I suggest threshold as an extention of the hit points mechanics then. ;-)
Robert
I have habitually used minotaurs, orcs, ogres, and stone giants only as examples for these. Never wraiths, basilisks, beholders, or balors.
I suggest threshold as an extention of the hit points mechanics then.
Excellent; I had misunderstood the "no special abilities" to imply they'd be somehow stripped from creatures that had them, which seemed a trifle odd.
Tell you what; I'll meet you halfway on damage threshold -- templates do often imply changes to the initial critter's personality and/or alignment, so if the "minion" template had something like this:
Damage Threshold (Ex): Minions, due to their condition of slavery, do not have the stomach to fight to the death. If dealt [insert your formula here] points of damage in 1 round, a minion either collapses, helpless with fear, or drops its weapons and begs for mercy, fleeing if it can. In any event, it will never willingly fight against those particular opponents again."
That way, we don't have to change how their HD give them hp, but the end result is exactly the same -- they're out of the fight.
Give 'em evasion as a bonus if you want to make up for it, and for ones with BAB +6 or above, give them Vital Strike (and possible IVS) as bonus feats (to eliminate the need for an arbitrary "no iterative attacks" rule), and you have a nominally CR +0 template.
Put a note in the into/flavor text that it speeds up play if they deal average damage and use average saves, and you've got a workable template, and a curmudgeony simulationist (me) who probably wouldn't mind using it.
|
|
I have habitually used minotaurs, orcs, ogres, and stone giants only as examples for these. Never wraiths, basilisks, beholders, or balors.
I suggest threshold as an extention of the hit points mechanics then.
Excellent; I had misunderstood the "no special abilities" to imply they'd be somehow stripped from creatures that had them, which seemed a trifle odd.
Tell you what; I'll meet you halfway on damage threshold -- templates do often imply changes to the initial critter's personality and/or alignment, so if the "minion" template had something like this:
Damage Threshold (Ex): Minions, due to their condition of slavery, do not have the stomach to fight to the death. If dealt [insert your formula here] points of damage in 1 round, a minion either collapses, helpless with fear, or drops its weapons and begs for mercy, fleeing if it can. In any event, it will never willingly fight against those particular opponents again."
That way, we don't have to change how their HD give them hp, but the end result is exactly the same -- they're out of the fight.
Give 'em evasion as a bonus if you want to make up for it, and for ones with BAB +6 or above, give them Vital Strike (and possible IVS) as bonus feats (to eliminate the need for an arbitrary "no iterative attacks" rule), and you have a nominally CR +0 template.
Put a note in the into/flavor text that it speeds up play if they deal average damage and use average saves, and you've got a workable template, and a curmudgeony simulationist (me) who probably wouldn't mind using it.
You rock, Kirth. It sounds good enough to me. ;-)
I do like the way it works. I am pretty set on such creatures only taking half-damage from area effect spells, too.
The reason for this is two-fold
1) so that a "lowly wand of 5d6 fireballs" isn't an artifact of destruction, \
2) with the advent of "threshhold" were no longer implying the creatures only HAVE 15 hitpoints and such a fireball kills them - were merely saying that a single opponetns damage doing 15 or more knocks them out of the fight (or 30 in this case from a spell that does this to multiple - area effect - targets.
So giving them Improved Evasion makes perfect sense to me.
Otherwise the creatures rarely would last beyond a simple 5d6 fireball wand.
It does however make individually targeted spells like Scorching Ray a viable second level spell, or sending all magic missles against the same target.
BTW - i love that word: Curmudgeon! It conjures a vivid mental picture with just that one word.
I'll do a write-up and send you one.
Robert
PS on another subject - remember our conversations of fighter talents, and more movement in combats etc - well, my rewriting of the game's combat rules and everything are coming along fantastically. My players are loving the playtesting.
I'll do a write-up and send you one.
PS on another subject - remember our conversations of fighter talents, and more movement in combats etc - well, my rewriting of the game's combat rules and everything are coming along fantastically.
Thank you, Robert! I look forward to seeing this stuff. I'm especially pleased that we managed to work out a "minion" that, I think, will satisfy the 4e-style "cinematic gamists" and yet still be acceptable to the 3e "simulationst curmudgeons" like Ogre (hopefully) and myself.
|
|
Thank you, Robert! I look forward to seeing this stuff. I'm especially pleased that we managed to work out a "minion" that, I think, will satisfy the 4e-style "cinematic gamists" and yet still be acceptable to the 3e "simulationst curmudgeons" like Ogre (hopefully) and myself.I'll do a write-up and send you one.
PS on another subject - remember our conversations of fighter talents, and more movement in combats etc - well, my rewriting of the game's combat rules and everything are coming along fantastically.
I love it when a plan comes together!
Robert
Thank you, Robert! I look forward to seeing this stuff. I'm especially pleased that we managed to work out a "minion" that, I think, will satisfy the 4e-style "cinematic gamists" and yet still be acceptable to the 3e "simulationst curmudgeons" like Ogre (hopefully) and myself.I'll do a write-up and send you one.
PS on another subject - remember our conversations of fighter talents, and more movement in combats etc - well, my rewriting of the game's combat rules and everything are coming along fantastically.
I am fine with what you suggest Kirth.
Sometimes we don't see the forest for the trees.
A while before I've got an idea how to fix the 1 hp minion for me, but then you guys came with the threshold, which is quite similar, so I didn't post it. It still doesn't mean that I support the 1 hp idea, but it's good enough for the brainstorming session IMO.
The tweak of the rules (intentionally avoiding template and other such things) would involve assigning the creature special DR X/* in addition to any DRs and whatever it already had.
- This DR works on ANY type of damage, including spells and damage from the environment for example.
- If the damage exceeds the value the creature gets 1 hp damage, for every additional time the damage exceeded the DR value there is an additional 1 hp damage (I'm sorry for cumbersome formulation, but thinking this early in the morning hurts).
- Normal DRs the creature had before apply to damage first of course.
I think that whole thing can be replaced with the threshold with the exception that damage above threshold deals 1 damage to the creature.
I thought that If I want tougher minion then it can have two or (gasp!) even THREE hp (I think you get the point, they are 300 % tougher than 4E minions! :D). Thus the minions that we want to may stay a little bit tougher. Of course that fast healing and regeneration would have to go away or to be tuned down (from fast healing 10 to 1hp/5 turns for example).
Just pondering a little, no need to start arguments over it...
Now I'd like to add (not in relation to my previous post) a few examples of encounters (no mechanics suggested implemented yet...).
A hill giant hunting party (According to the MM 6-9 hill giants + 2-4 dire wolves) vs. 17th level party.
Setting: A party is travelling (riding horses, teleportation is reserved for emergency...) through some woods that fail to pose any suitably epic threat (no far realm infestation or whatever) to visit some old friends. As (quite likely random) encounter they meet the giant hunting party that fails to percieve the level of threat presented by four horse riding people and so they arrtack, because human flesh is just as good as any other and the party may have something shiny... what a wonderful opportunity for minion use.
The hunting party consists of one hill giant barbarian level 5 lacking a good portion of magical gear that a character of this level should have (lower CR) and 7 hill giants. 4 dire wolves are used for tracking (maybe we can use double amount).
PCs are a stock D&D party (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard).
Standard rules: The hill giant barbarian is the only real threat and the rest of the hunting party is either trying to hit the PCs or rolling aid another actions when they find out that doing the first is not easy. With 100+ hp they are going to last, but the harm caused is minimal. I think there is no point in speaking about the wolves... I think we know who saw whom first (party spot / listen vs. giant hide / move silently is not comparable at this level) and I doubt that the giants have potions of heroism or something like that in their pockets 'just in case' (party: did they have anything interesting in their bags? DM: Not at all, the giants drank all their treasure as the fight started). There are also no typical support characters like shamans within a few miles around.
Posibilities: The hill giants turned to minions may speed the things up a litte and the wolves are fine candidates for being turned to mob as they'll use pack tactics anyway.
Why am I posting this all? Well to show that both the mob and the minion may be interesting to have in game, but they should be kept separate IMO.
One of the things I suggested earlier was including the mass attack mechanic for minions (but it could be core somehow). Technically it's simplified aid another mechanic.
- DM declares X as mass attacking (three hill giants are trying to smash the fighter...)
- one attack roll (standard creatre attack + 2 * (X-1))
- one damage upon hit.
one roll, that's all.
Now I'd like to add (not in relation to my previous post) a few examples of encounters (no mechanics suggested implemented yet...).
A hill giant hunting party (According to the MM 6-9 hill giants + 2-4 dire wolves) vs. 17th level party.
Setting: A party is travelling (riding horses, teleportation is reserved for emergency...) through some woods that fail to pose any suitably epic threat (no far realm infestation or whatever) to visit some old friends. As (quite likely random) encounter they meet the giant hunting party that fails to percieve the level of threat presented by four horse riding people and so they arrtack, because human flesh is just as good as any other and the party may have something shiny... what a wonderful opportunity for minion use.
The hunting party consists of one hill giant barbarian level 5 lacking a good portion of magical gear that a character of this level should have (lower CR) and 7 hill giants. 4 dire wolves are used for tracking (maybe we can use double amount).
PCs are a stock D&D party (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard).
Standard rules: The hill giant barbarian is the only real threat and the rest of the hunting party is either trying to hit the PCs or rolling aid another actions when they find out that doing the first is not easy. With 100+ hp they are going to last, but the harm caused is minimal. I think there is no point in speaking about the wolves... I think we know who saw whom first (party spot / listen vs. giant hide / move silently is not comparable at this level) and I doubt that the giants have potions of heroism or something like that in their pockets 'just in case' (party: did they have anything interesting in their bags? DM: Not at all, the giants drank all their treasure as the fight started). There are also no typical support characters like shamans within a few miles around.
Posibilities: The hill giants turned to minions may speed the things up a litte and the wolves are fine candidates for being turned to mob as they'll use pack tactics anyway.
...
.
All great, but good house-rule stuff. PFRPG needs to just stay 3.5 compatable. Minions are 4e. There is nothing broke about 3.5 in the area of "minions". No one ever mentioned it until 4e came out. When I need "minions" I house rule it.
|
A Minion gets +3 to attacks and AC.I'm still not real clear as to why not just use a weaker base creature (instead of going through all the work of nerfing an existing one), and then give the BBEG an ability/magic item that gives all his followers +X to attacks/damage/AC/whatever? It seems a lot easier and more straightforward, and then you only have to adjust the BBEG's CR, not the CRs of every mook.There is a very real good reason why not use a weaker base creature. That is story.
Quite simply if the rules cannot tell the story, then the rules are broke...
But then sometimes the BBEG is not "inspiring", or even has a magic item which is a problem. And if it's a magic item, the PCs will have their hands on it.
That becomes the problem of the story then, and there just isn't any really helping that. If the story has a lousy Boss who uses an overly powered item that the PCs can get ahold of, then the GM had just better be ready to deal. No matter the rules, nothing helps bad GMing and a bad story. :)
I am picturing a CR 1/4 kobold wielding Asmodeus' staff... jabbering away in his lair and subjugating his lowly kobold slaves. When in walks a goblin CR 1/3, whacks him upside the head and takes the Staff. As he walks out of the lair an Orc, CR 1/2, wacks the goblin and takes the Staff. As the orc celebrates its might and victory a lvl 1 Rogue sneak attacks it and takes the Staff...
|
|
All great, but good house-rule stuff. PFRPG needs to just stay 3.5 compatable. Minions are 4e. There is nothing broke about 3.5 in the area of "minions". No one ever mentioned it until 4e came out. When I need "minions" I house rule it.
Thats very true. Most good DMs can house-rule anything. That being said, the fact that you can house-rule in something like this, I'm sure you're quite capable of house-ruling it out just as easily if it was included.
There is absolutely nothing about the idea of minions that could not be made 3.5 compatible.
This thread is to help create a mechanic that IS, for those DMs who cannot so easily house-rule such things, or that perhaps wants some consistency in the way it could work along with other people.
But thank you for contributing.
Robert
All great, but good house-rule stuff. PFRPG needs to just stay 3.5 compatable. Minions are 4e. There is nothing broke about 3.5 in the area of "minions". No one ever mentioned it until 4e came out. When I need "minions" I house rule it.
Great, so you've read the last post. Did you try to read the ones that came before?
I fail to see the compatibility problem with previous books if we add something extra. I also think that there is something wrong in the minion area in 3.5 rules. The area doesn't exist. Can you explain a bit more in detail how we would lose the compatibility by adding something optional and not altering the rules upon which the concept is based?
Sure that we can house-rule whatever we want, even rolling 2d10 instead of d20, but what we wanted was the concept of a minion represented in encounter building and possibly adding a simple mechanic that would keep weaker creatures in fight without increasing their toughness by adding class levels. 3.5 core rules indeed have a problem when you try to use 20 kobolds against level 12 party or 15 hill giants against level 20 party. The result is either pointless massacre when the party rolls through poor kobolds without breaking a sweat or spends a better part of the hour rolling automatic hits and waiting for the giants to roll a natural 20, which sucks.
And if you've read the posts that came before then you'd have also noticed that things like minions were lurking around in some non WotC books.
So far people here
- thought that minions as a concept are fine
- largely agreed upon the fact 4E minions are not what we want.
- suggested several solutions that may work to represent the concept of minion.
- wanted to see how it would work with CR / XP awards mechanics
This thread is to help create a mechanic that IS, for those DMs who cannot so easily house-rule such things, or that perhaps wants some consistency in the way it could work along with other people.
Well actually Snoring Rock most likely has the right of it. Odds are there will be no minion mechanism in PRPG.
I was thinking about some of the things that James Jacobs said in another thread about 4e being "Gamist" while 3.5 is more of a simulation and that was one of the reasons he preferred 3.5. I'm not sure whether this is an opinion that is widely held at Paizo but I get the impression it is.
What exactly he means by 'gamist' I'm not sure but I read it to mean that 4e is more about the play experience without making an effort towards realism while 3.5 is more about trying to simulate a situation. Now clearly 3.5 is a very crude simulation but 4e abandoned all attempts at simulation.
I see Minions as a highly gamist concept. Kirth has come up with something that makes them reasonable, but there is really no reason to come up with a new set of rules for that. Almost everything he's done can be incorporated in the strategy portion of the stat block. So I find it unlikely that Jason would make a change that moves the game further away from being a simulation.
Once again unrelated to my previous post. I'd like to demonstrate upon an encounter that even a basilisk can be a minion (I'm against taking away the special abilities of minions).
A high level party (about 15) enters a throne room of a witch-overlord to crush the villain and release the land from his grasp (yeah, typical hero stuff).
In the throne room there is the witch-overlord (thiefling sorcerer 16) sitting on his throne, his personal guard (2 ice devils) standing on either side of their lord and his pets (6 basilisks) lying on the steps leading up to the throne.
As the party enters the room, the sorcerer stands up and while shouting "Make me a statue!" points at the fighter. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.
A basilisk (45 hp, atk +9, petrification DC 13) failed to represent serious threat. Even a wizard who started with Con 6/-2 is able to bring his Fort save (+5 level -2 ability +3 cloak of resistance + 1 Ability increasing item (Con +2)) to good levels (saves on 6+) and I'm still not counting any nonpermanent boosts the party probably activated or the fact that the wizard could have used wishes to bring his Con up a little. The basilisks could be altered that they loose their alertness for ability focus and the sorcerer can cast mass eagle's splendor to bring the DC up to 17, maybe more HD, but what if we don't want them to hang around for that long?
A while before I suggested the mass ability use, which would be something like aid another with abilities.
For every additional creature using the same ability with the first the ability DC gets +2. So, now we'd have 6 basilisks trying to use their gaze at once. 5 helpers = +10 DC, with base 13 we are now at 23 (without touching the base creature)... Now we're talking.
If we've made the basilisks to minions we'd have them even able to bite or something, but they could be made to work even without that (45 hp won't save the lizard, so it can have less and be a little more dangerous in other areas anyway).
What do you think about this?
in response to Dennis
Well, that would depend on what do we want to simulate. Do we want the rules to be able to accomodate what we want to tell in a story, or do we want our story to twist as the rules dictate. 4E, minions or not, is closer to the second than 3.5 is, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing to improve.
The fact that heroes render creatures obsolete by gaining a few levels (unless said creatures are turned to highly customized hero-killers) is not nice at all.
|
|
A while before I suggested the mass ability use, which would be something like aid another with abilities.
For every additional creature using the same ability with the first the ability DC gets +2. So, now we'd have 6 basilisks trying to use their gaze at once. 5 helpers = +10 DC, with base 13 we are now at 23 (without touching the base creature)... Now we're talking.
If we've made the basilisks to minions we'd have them even able to bite or something, but they could be made to work even without that (45 hp won't save the lizard, so it can have less and be a little more dangerous in other areas anyway).
What do...
First, IMO, and I'm with Kirth on this, you're better off using a Monitor lizard, or crocodile or something instead of a basislisk as a "minion" part of an encounter - if you're just looking for something for the PCs to cut through and move on.
That being said - having multiple Basilisks for a difficult encounter is also an option - just not as seamlessly as a minion.
The notion of rolling 6 or 8 saving thrown against the petrification is going to stack the odds in the creatures favor - eventually someone is going to roll low if they have to do this 8 times (assuming there are 8 basilisks).
That being said, I learned a long time ago, it is a hassle to have every player roll 8 saving throws - so time consuming. Especially against things that all provide a fear, or ghasts stench, or haryps song, etc.
I have been using a very similar mechanic for several years now - probably since about 98 in my 2nd ed Ravenloft campaign I ran. It eliminates all the extraneous dice rolls and instead simply increases the DC but for one roll.
In the instances of the aforementioned type creatures and encounters, when there are several creatures all using the exact same special ability at the same time, I increase the DC by +2 every double/multiple of the creature.
2 = +2
4 = +4
8 = +6
16 = +8
32 = +10
So 8 basilisks would be DC 19 in my game. But thats a pretty tall order for the rogues and wizards.
It has worked pretty well over the years.
Robert
|
|
Once again unrelated to my previous post. I'd like to demonstrate upon an encounter that even a basilisk can be a minion (I'm against taking away the special abilities of minions).
A high level party (about 15) enters a throne room of a witch-overlord to crush the villain and release the land from his grasp (yeah, typical hero stuff).
In the throne room there is the witch-overlord (thiefling sorcerer 16) sitting on his throne, his personal guard (2 ice devils) standing on either side of their lord and his pets (6 basilisks) lying on the steps leading up to the throne.
Eaten by the post moinsters so I'll just say freakin cool man I love it.
Exactly why we need stuff for Mooks and henchmen.
I might just advance the basilisks without making them minions; higher HD, use the ability modifier (every 4 HD) to increase the gaze-modifying stat, and use the additional feat for Ability Focus (and/or one or more of the splatbook gaze feats). The heroes are then forced to decide whether they want to try to cut through them (which would take forever, with the sorcerer raining spells on them that whole time) or go around/over them, potentially drawing attacks of opportunity and leaving them flanked. Personally, I think the whole scenario works a lot better if the basilisks are NOT "minions," but rather full-strength advanced basilisks.
If that would involve jumping their HD (and CR) to totally unreasonable levels to jack up the save DC, I'd maybe allow them to Aid Another on petrifaction gazes. This is ultimately very similar to what Robert does, but with (1) the disadvantage that you have to roll more dice (to see if the aid attempts succeed) and (2) the advantage that it utilizes an existing game mechanic into expanded areas, instead of adding a new one. Then again, as pointed out, if you want to roll more dice, just leave it as is -- someone's bound to get a "1" sooner or later, and fail.
Well, that would depend on what do we want to simulate. Do we want the rules to be able to accomodate what we want to tell in a story, or do we want our story to twist as the rules dictate. 4E, minions or not, is closer to the second than 3.5 is, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing to improve.
The story is inevitably slave to the rules of the game, otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting changing the rules to accommodate certain types of stories.
The question is what is more important in the story, a sense of excitement from killing large numbers of creatures or a fairly consistent rational world. Personally I lean towards a more rational gaming system. Under that assumption any "improvements" in the rules is a move towards a more consistent, rational system.
...
First, IMO, and I'm with Kirth on this, you're better off using a Monitor lizard, or crocodile or something instead of a basislisk as a "minion" part of an encounter - if you're just looking for something for the PCs to cut through and move on.
Well, I know that for ease of things I could use something like this. I just think that even the basilisks can be used without them losing their shine (base creatures will fade away after one or two fireballs anyway)
That being said - having multiple Basilisks for a difficult encounter is also an option - just not as seamlessly as a minion.
Well, it could be. It's just a minion with second attack option the simplification is in slamming multiple rolls to one. For me there isn't much difference between kobolds with bows and swords and basilisks with bite and gaze. I originally intended mass attacks and mass ability uses for minions only to prevent monsters that don't need it from whipping their numbers insanely high.
The notion of rolling 6 or 8 saving thrown against the petrification is going to stack the odds in the creatures favor - eventually someone is going to roll low if they have to do this 8 times (assuming there are 8 basilisks).That being said, I learned a long time ago, it is a hassle to have every player roll 8 saving throws - so time consuming. Especially against things that all provide a fear, or ghasts stench, or haryps song, etc.
I have been using a very similar mechanic for several years now - probably since about 98 in my 2nd ed Ravenloft campaign I ran. It eliminates all the extraneous dice rolls and instead simply increases the DC but for one roll.
Good to know that. I think this would be good to see in the rules. And it could also apply to cast spells. (a few wizards casting hold person may be able to restrain even a high level blackguard... good mechanic to explain why a city is (relatively) safe even if it doens't have superheroes hanging around)
In the instances of the aforementioned type creatures and encounters, when there are several creatures all using the exact same special ability at the same time, I increase the DC by +2 every double/multiple of the creature.2 = +2
4 = +4
8 = +6
16 = +8
32 = +10So 8 basilisks would be DC 19 in my game. But thats a pretty tall order for the rogues and wizards.
It has worked pretty well over the years.
Robert
Well, that depends entirely upon the level of the party.
I'd regulate the save DC simply by leting less monsters to do the bad stuff (munchkin term used intentionally). I think the curve may be steeper and common sense shoudl be used to keep the encounter in check.
Still thanks for the thoughts.
Just trying to imagine 128 grigs trying to make dwarven paladin dance... ;)
Well, that would depend on what do we want to simulate. Do we want the rules to be able to accomodate what we want to tell in a story, or do we want our story to twist as the rules dictate. 4E, minions or not, is closer to the second than 3.5 is, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing to improve.The story is inevitably slave to the rules of the game, otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting changing the rules to accommodate certain types of stories.
The question is what is more important in the story, a sense of excitement from killing large numbers of creatures or a fairly consistent rational world. Personally I lean towards a more rational gaming system. Under that assumption any "improvements" in the rules is a move towards a more consistent, rational system.
Well depends on the definition of the hit points. For example the minions in this encounter would lose all hp after one or two hits. Not necessarily it would die. The basilisk wouls simply scuttle away to lick it's wounds, which could be played with normal rules by simply stating that the lizards will run after receiving more than 20 damage. Yes, I'm aware of that. Just tinkering with the concept.
Just trying to imagine 128 grigs trying to make dwarven paladin dance... ;)
Can't remember where, now, but I just recently saw a grig swarm statted up as a monster... no idea what that made the dance DC.
I might just advance the basilisks without making them minions; higher HD, use the ability modifier (every 4 HD) to increase the gaze-modifying stat, and use the additional feat for Ability Focus (and/or one or more of the splatbook gaze feats). The heroes are then forced to decide whether they want to try to cut through them (which would take forever, with the sorcerer raining spells on them that whole time) or go around/over them, potentially drawing attacks of opportunity and leaving them flanked. Personally, I think the whole scenario works a lot better if the basilisks are NOT "minions," but rather full-strength advanced basilisks.
Well, if the sorcerer and devils are already enough challenge, then I don't want the basilisks to get in the way too much. I'm saying that they could work this way.
If that would involve jumping their HD (and CR) to totally unreasonable levels to jack up the save DC, I'd maybe allow them to Aid Another on petrifaction gazes. This is ultimately very similar to what Robert does, but with (1) the disadvantage that you have to roll more dice (to see if the aid attempts succeed) and (2) the advantage that it utilizes an existing game mechanic into expanded areas, instead of adding a new one. Then again, as pointed out, if you want to roll more dice, just leave it as is -- someone's bound to get a "1" sooner or later, and fail.
Aehm, look again at the post to what I suggest. I want to leave less dice and since the basilisks would probably succeed in aid another I suggested adding those +2 per basilisk helper from the start.
Please note that I'm still in brainstorming mode...
Just trying to imagine 128 grigs trying to make dwarven paladin dance... ;)Can't remember where, now, but I just recently saw a grig swarm statted up as a monster... no idea what that made the dance DC.
Maybe the swarm was without the dance power (according to MM some sprites don't have the fiddle if I recall it correctly).
Well, if the sorcerer and devils are already enough challenge, then I don't want the basilisks to get in the way too much. I'm saying that they could work this way.
In this case, the tactical situation is much more interesting if the basilisks are a full-strength threat... and the story is the same. All you'd need to do is slip in an extra few encounters beforehand so the PCs are 1 level higher, if need be.
Aehm, look again at the post to what I suggest. I want to leave less dice and since the basilisks would probably succeed in aid another I suggested adding those +2 per basilisk helper from the start. Please note that I'm still in brainstorming mode...
Yeah, me, too. I'm agreeing with you, just in a very longwinded fashion.
Well depends on the definition of the hit points. For example the minions in this encounter would lose all hp after one or two hits. Not necessarily it would die. The basilisk wouls simply scuttle away to lick it's wounds, which could be played with normal rules by simply stating that the lizards will run after receiving more than 20 damage. Yes, I'm aware of that. Just tinkering with the concept.
No, it does not depend on the definition of hit points. Note I said "rational and consistent" not "Realistic". If the goal were to make a system that was realistic then all humans would have roughly 5 HP. A "Hit" with a sword would almost always be an instant kill to PCs.
When I say rational and consistent I mean that the game system is consistent throughout and that you can use logic and reason to figure out the way the system works. Having the system be accurate is preferred but it's more important to make the rules consistent. To have hit points work one way in one place and a different way somewhere else is not consistent at all.
Aehm, look again at the post to what I suggest. I want to leave less dice and since the basilisks would probably succeed in aid another I suggested adding those +2 per basilisk helper from the start.
I like the idea of swarming powers and SLAs. There are some monsters who have SLAs like this or where 3 or more can enable some other power... I'm not sure a generic rule would work but it would great if it was written into more of the monsters.
Note: I'm not saying a generic rule on combining SLAs is bad, just that without taking a complete look at the MM it's hard to predict what you might find.
|
|
Aehm, look again at the post to what I suggest. I want to leave less dice and since the basilisks would probably succeed in aid another I suggested adding those +2 per basilisk helper from the start.I like the idea of swarming powers and SLAs. There are some monsters who have SLAs like this or where 3 or more can enable some other power... I'm not sure a generic rule would work but it would great if it was written into more of the monsters.
Note: I'm not saying a generic rule on combining SLAs is bad, just that without taking a complete look at the MM it's hard to predict what you might find.
For the record, when I started increasing the DC of the saving throws (or applying penalities to the roll in 2nd edition) based on multiple creatures - it wasn't that they were "combining their powers" like a shocker lizard or three vrocks can do - it was more of a mathematical probability equation.
Instead of rolling 10 saving thrown, just make one roll but make it harder - quicker and more streamlined.
That being said - having a concept for certain things to combine their powers is not a bad concept - but i just wanted to clear the matter that i only made the meta-game adjustment for simplicity sake.
Robert
For the record, when I started increasing the DC of the saving throws (or applying penalities to the roll in 2nd edition) based on multiple creatures - it wasn't that they were "combining their powers" like a shocker lizard or three vrocks can do - it was more of a mathematical probability equation.
Instead of rolling 10 saving thrown, just make one roll but make it harder - quicker and more streamlined.
Well regardless of what you are attempting to do the effect is you are combining their powers into one stronger one. If you are doing a mathematical probability equation then you should probably do the math for each situation (or at the very least for any given combination of DCs and save bonuses). Your +2 for each doubling is only relevant for a very small number of DC/ saving throw combinations.
As an example, your 8 Basilisks versus a 15th level barbarian with an 18 CON will only fail on a roll of a 1. 8 saves later his chance of surviving is 66%. Your +6 bonus means he fails on a 5 or a 75% chance of survival... not bad.
With a 15th level wizard with a 14 CON will survive the 8 basilisks only 5.7% of the time with 8 saves. With your +6 DC he now survives 60% of the time... Huge win for the wizard.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of combining the powers and your formula is a nice simple one to implement but it's not by any means a probability equation.
Rather than work out an equation, it might be easier to figure out "I need a 6 to save against one of them," and then borrow a bunch of d20's from around the table. Throw 8 of 'em and see if any are less than 6. I know, it involves more dice, but they can be rolled simultaneously instead of in sequence.
Rather than work out an equation, it might be easier to figure out "I need a 6 to save against one of them," and then borrow a bunch of d20's from around the table. Throw 8 of 'em and see if any are less than 6. I know, it involves more dice, but they can be rolled simultaneously instead of in sequence.
Most DMs have a fistful of d20s for such occasions *evil grin* but in the situation he describes everyone at the table would have to roll 8 dice each time.
Well like I said above, I'm cool with the idea but most likely it is best done on a case by case basis on the monsters stat blocks.
|
|
With a 15th level wizard with a 14 CON will survive the 8 basilisks only 5.7% of the time with 8 saves. With your +6 DC he now survives 60% of the time... Huge win for the wizard.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of combining the powers and your formula is a nice simple one to implement but it's not by any means a probability equation.
well I'm too lazy to do all that calculus - it was SWAG I'll admit it, but its quick painless and easy to use; and the the DC that is being increased is usually commensurate with the CR of the creature, thus commensurate with the level of the party facing it, thus commensurate with the bonuses of their saves.
So it all worked out. It was just like warband tactics in using one attack roll for the whole unit of 50 people.
I wanted less rolls and less time adjusting them - so one roll and makde it more or less balanced - without the headaches of figuring perfect probabilities and without the hassle of so many dice rolling. It worked really well for us.
Robert
|
|
Rather than work out an equation, it might be easier to figure out "I need a 6 to save against one of them," and then borrow a bunch of d20's from around the table. Throw 8 of 'em and see if any are less than 6. I know, it involves more dice, but they can be rolled simultaneously instead of in sequence.Most DMs have a fistful of d20s for such occasions *evil grin* but in the situation he describes everyone at the table would have to roll 8 dice each time.
Well like I said above, I'm cool with the idea but most likely it is best done on a case by case basis on the monsters stat blocks.
yeah exactly - it was 8 each. And it was case by case; i remember it applying to harpys once, ghasts a few times (since it was ravenloft), a few different fear inspiring creature encounters, and once with some demon or devil that had stench that nauseates - that they encountered a dozen of them or so at once.
That wasn't very often over a three and a half years long running campaign.
Robert
yeah exactly - it was 8 each. And it was case by case; i remember it applying to harpys once, ghasts a few times (since it was ravenloft), a few different fear inspiring creature encounters, and once with some demon or devil that had stench that nauseates - that they encountered a dozen of them or so at once.
Well I actually think a lot of them would make sense to combine. In particular for fear and sickness effects. But as I said above, on a case-by-case basis. For example if there are 3 dragons you should have to roll for the fear aura for each one.
|
|
on a case-by-case basis. For example if there are 3 dragons you should have to roll for the fear aura for each one.
Okay I'll concede that on such a rare instance to be using such a nightmarish scenario, it makes sense to roll three.
I'm sure my players are happy I've never attacked them with three dragons before at once.
Robert
on a case-by-case basis. For example if there are 3 dragons you should have to roll for the fear aura for each one.Okay I'll concede that on such a rare instance to be using such a nightmarish scenario, it makes sense to roll three.
I'm sure my players are happy I've never attacked them with three dragons before at once.
Well I was just making an example for why I thought it should be a case by case basis, I'm sure there are other instances where multiple saves are better. Right now I'm running Read Hand of Doom so Dragons are on the mind.
I am not sold on minion rules. But, since the MM for PFRPG is not yet written, how about this?
Add minion-type monters to the book. For large group type encountered critters, say like kobolds, have a minion type stat block for them in the MM. Then nothing really changes and there is little risk of deviating away from the 3.5 rule set compatability. I know there are those who disagree, I just think that adding minion rules is a bad idea. On the otherhand, adding minion statted monsters to the list of monsters seem feasible. I like the idea of running into the room and lowing stuff down too...but, it takes real time. If into a room full of koblds, as a 20th level fighter with +5 armor, shields, etc., backed by every feat in the book, chance are I will win the battle. But because bodies dont just up and fly out of the way, it will take time for me to "mow" through them.
Minion stated monsters I could live with. Too much tinkering could hurt the system.....IMHO.