|
Who has seen a druid played in PFRPG?
What level of druid?
And if you could a little time… What is you thoughts on their power level?
I'm playing a Barbarian /1 Druid /4 Half-Orc.
Power very Slightly overnerfed, but still more then tolerable.
-summon is useless at low levels, but thats a fix for the spells.
-Would like an option to default to buffing spells (Those with Animals in the Name) instead of Summoning spells.
-Animal Companion is incredibly useful
-Domain not so much, want Healing added and give them 2.
-Wildshape... A little too little too late, would have liked an option to trade the Animal Companion or Domain for it.
Also, I've decided that the PF's Wild Shape rules are both too complex and too weak to really increase his combat capabilities (wimpiest. crocodile. ever.), so I've scaled back to reliable 3.5 until he gets up a couple more levels.Weak, I can understand. But why do you think it's complex?Because with 3.X, when Wild Shaping, you turn to the appropriate page in the Monster Manual and refer to the creature.
In PF, you determine what you're going to change into, refer to the appropriate spell for what abilities you get access to, THEN refer to the Monster Manual entry just to check what the creature in question has. If the spell in question doesn't give you access to the ability you don't get it.
Basically, it's a matter of checking a single place instead of three and then altering what you have.
(a) In 3.5, you also need to refer to the spell in order to know what you do or don't get (e.g. with Alter Self, you get natural attacks but not (Ex) special attacks; with Polymorph, you get (Ex) special attacks but not (Ex) special qualities; with Shapechange, you get (Ex) special qualities but not spell-like abilities, etc.). Or you would need to refer to the spell, except for the fact that you've memorized it by now!
(b) What three places do you need to consult? I know you might need to look up Beast Shape II (say) and the stats for a crocodile, but what else?
I think your complaint about complexity is mostly just being unfamiliar with the Pathfinder ability compared to familiarity with the 3.5 ability.
You may be right about the familiarity. I know what's allowed, backward and forward in 3.5. I just have to look at the MM entry for the animal anymore. It also helped that there was a grand total of one, maybe two spells to consult in 3.5, where PF has considerably more.
As for the three places to look in PF, you have to first consult the druid entry for the appropriate level and type of spell, then the spell itself and then cross-reference with the MM entry on the creature to see what it has, vs. what the level of spell allows.
I played a Dwarf Druid in RotRL #3 at level 8.
I ended up playing three sessions with him but was disappointed with his usefulness to the group and left him to Defend Fort Rannick (where he promptly caused a tower to collapse).
The Dire Wolverine companion he had did almost nothing compared to the fighter and ranger in the group, and I ended up just using him to flank when possible, until movement modes caused me to have to leave him behind and never use him again. Originally I was going to go toe-to-toe up front with him, but since you can't get double uses with share spells (it only allows you to cast a spell on one of you, not on both), most of the spells I had prepared at first were much less useful to me. The 3.5 version was much, much better, and made for far more interesting front line druids.
Offensively, the druid spell list was the biggest disappointment playing the character. In every round I felt I was struggling to find something interesting or effective to do. My best use to the party was because I had some wands of Bull's, Bear's, and Barks (with flavor as having crafted them from a ram's horn, a deer antler, and a stick) and used them for buffing. Other than that I stone shaped twice which was interesting and call lightning the one time I had it prepared.
Wild shape I mostly used to buff myself and fly/swim. I never got what kind of natural attacks I had, so I just assumed I couldn't use them or was non-proficient since it wasn't in the spell description. Had I had them, it would have been nothing compared to our meleeists in the party, so I treated wild shape as a permanent natural armor/stat bonus. Once I got blinded so I turned into a bat and thoroughly annoyed people before I was cured.
Wild shape I mostly used to buff myself and fly/swim. I never got what kind of natural attacks I had, so I just assumed I couldn't use them or was non-proficient since it wasn't in the spell description. Had I had them, it would have been nothing compared to our meleeists in the party, so I treated wild shape as a permanent natural armor/stat bonus. Once I got blinded so I turned into a bat and thoroughly annoyed people before I was cured.
Page 159:
"(...) In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature. These attacks are based on your base attack bonus, modified by your Strength or Dexterity as appropriate, and use your Strength modifier for determining damage bonuses."So, basically, from the monster statistics you only have to take note of the movement, special attacks/qualities and the natural weapon routine attack it has. The Druid level you possess determine which movement, special attacks and special abilities you possess (since the Druid's Wild Shape becomes more and more powerful, mimicking the most powerful Beast Shape and Elemental Body spells) from the original form.
For example, if you take the form of a medium animal which normally has a Fly speed of 80 feet (good maneuverability), Wild-shaping at 4th level would grant you only a Fly speed of 30 (average maneuverability), since it grants the Druid the powers of Beast Shape I; at 6th level, since Wild Shape now grants the powers of Beast Shape II, the same form would grant a Fly speed of 60 ft (good); and finally, at 8th level (Wild Shape = Beast Shape III), the form would have Fly 80 ft (good). The natural attacks would be granted from the beginning, but special attacks or qualities would be granted according to the Beast Shape-Wild Shape comparison, as well (for example, if the same form had Blindsense 30 ft, the Druid would gain it only from 8th level (see Beast Shape III).
Druid in the game I'm running got rid of wildshape for monk like abilities via Unearthed Arcana.
So I can't help you there.
Other than that, it's not too different.
im lost, how does the druid trade wildshape for monk abilites?
im lost, how does the druid trade wildshape for monk abilites?
It's an Unearthed Arcana variant.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#druid
Right now we have a 1st level party and I'm playing a half orc druid who is going to focus on shaping for melee. He has a high strength and wisdom and an eagle companion.
Thus far the bulk of his casting has been sucked up patching together the parties barbarian with healing. His animal companion doesn't outshine anyone in the party except his flight and fast movement has proved extremely useful in several encounters, including one where the party would have otherwise been forced to retreat.
In melee the high strength plus the fact that he can use the falchion has proved pretty effective. Overall the druid has been more effective than the bard or the sorcerer in the party and is about on par with the barbarian with regards to effectiveness. Add in the fact that the barbarian would have had to go home for the day due to damage the druid healed and the druid is doing quite well.
A player has retcon'd a 14th level character into a Druid, so I'll see how it plays.
Im starting a game next week for play testing purposes i will humbly ask one of the players to play a half Orc Druid and let you know how it comes out.
On another note i dont see how a Half Orc Druid is a stretch i always found that Druids and Barbarians went together nicely. Since most people already think of Half Orcs for Barbarians why not have the tribe shamans be Druids? Only natural if you ask me.
No one has been playing Elven Druids that nuke everything? I would have figured that would be a very popular pick...
I am DM'ing a Half-Orc druid. My only observations are the following.
- Summon <whatever> is utterly useless at low levels because the summoned thing only sticks around for 1 round per caster level. In most cases the druid has a better attack and damage and is better off just attacking himself. Occasionally it's a full round spell that grants a teammate a flank, but thats about it.
- Other 1st level spells pretty much blow worse then the arcane or divine list. Some of the splatty 3.x books address this with some swift utility spells and stuff like Snake's Swiftness.
So my observation is that (he's level 3 now) thus far he has basically been reduced to being a poor fighter with an occasional cure light wounds with a dire rat that runs around and occasionally obeys his orders.
DM'ing as well for a level 3
summon always was dodgy at really low-levels, but even by 3rd level, a 3 round ally II (or d3 level I's) is a reasonable use of a spell especially as its so flexible
at the moment the 1/2 orc druid 3 is using flare and scimitar for mooks and then burning sphere as her main offensive spell. other party members are monk, bard and rogue so no-one is dominating combat
The party grouped together for a wand of cure light - prevents the druid becoming a poor mans cleric
DM'ing as well for a level 3
summon always was dodgy at really low-levels, but even by 3rd level, a 3 round ally II (or d3 level I's) is a reasonable use of a spell especially as its so flexible
Actually, depending on my focus, I'll sometimes cast spontaneous Extended Summon Nature's Ally I at 3rd level, getting myself 6 rounds of help instead of 3.
Actually, depending on my focus, I'll sometimes cast spontaneous Extended Summon Nature's Ally I at 3rd level, getting myself 6 rounds of help instead of 3.DM'ing as well for a level 3
summon always was dodgy at really low-levels, but even by 3rd level, a 3 round ally II (or d3 level I's) is a reasonable use of a spell especially as its so flexible
nice use of the feat - hadn't really considered that metamagics work well with divine spontaneous conversions......
|
My wife played a gnome druid up to level 3 and she had a lot of fun. She's a novice with d20 gaming, but the rules were easy enough for her to follow without slowing down the game too much.
Wolf companion at level 1 and 2 was the party's major melee fighter (we had a gnome dragon shaman and a halfling ranged attack ranger), which was a big help in a 3 person party of small characters.
Obviously, we didn't play long enough to get into the complicated things like wild shape, but the character was able to contribute in a meaninful way without dominating the party. That's the point, right? :)
nice use of the feat - hadn't really considered that metamagics work well with divine spontaneous conversions......Actually, depending on my focus, I'll sometimes cast spontaneous Extended Summon Nature's Ally I at 3rd level, getting myself 6 rounds of help instead of 3.DM'ing as well for a level 3
summon always was dodgy at really low-levels, but even by 3rd level, a 3 round ally II (or d3 level I's) is a reasonable use of a spell especially as its so flexible
The only drawback is that it extends the casting by a round. Since I'm already casting for a round anyway, it's really no big deal. Plus it only gets more useful at higher levels as you get access to more and better creatures to summon.
My old 3.5 druid just died and i'm thinking of using the pathfinder druid. Some comments
The wildshape ability is scattered. It would be better to at least put the pg 160 as a reference into the power or the spell wording itself. When looking at it i was thinking of whether i got healed when i wildshaped, did my stats conform to the animal, did i use the BAB of the animal, did i get secondary attacks, etc.
That was how i stumbled on to this post, trying to find answers (and that was in pg 160)
Now looking at the druid wildshape, i disagree its been nerfed to uselessness. I use the elemental companion subsitute ability rather than the standard caster+tank animal or wildshape tank + animal tank style. For those who find it nerfed too badly, think about how to play to the druid's new strengths
Because of the massive MAD using wildshape now, the optimal use of the druid as i can see is the hidden, stealthy caster + animal tanker. Having tiny size at level 6 is a massive boon. Having earth and air elemental movement at level 6 is also another massive boon.
The opposite end i can see would be the druid fighting type (large size wildshape) backed by an animal companion. Casting ability would be not a priority.
Will attempt to play the stealthy caster + riding dog tank and see how it goes.
No one has been playing Elven Druids that nuke everything? I would have figured that would be a very popular pick...
Seems like they should but the game rules make them pretty mediocre druids at best. Penalty to CON, DEX and INT bonuses don't really play to the druid's strengths either. Plus the flavor of the elf is really geared more towards wizards. Half elves would make decent druids.
Sadly, our halfling druid seems to have dropped out. Which is a shame, because something just occurred to me. Has anyone considered a set of optional rules concerning wildshaping that take into account the original size of the druid? It seems to me that a halfling druid would gain more than normal by going to a medium size creature just because it would take him up a size category. Likewise, an ogrekin druid would gain less from going down a size to a medium creature. Just a thought.
I played a Dwarf Druid in RotRL #3 at level 8.
I ended up playing three sessions with him but was disappointed with his usefulness to the group and left him to Defend Fort Rannick (where he promptly caused a tower to collapse).
The Dire Wolverine companion he had did almost nothing compared to the fighter and ranger in the group, and I ended up just using him to flank when possible, until movement modes caused me to have to leave him behind and never use him again. Originally I was going to go toe-to-toe up front with him, but since you can't get double uses with share spells (it only allows you to cast a spell on one of you, not on both), most of the spells I had prepared at first were much less useful to me. The 3.5 version was much, much better, and made for far more interesting front line druids.
Offensively, the druid spell list was the biggest disappointment playing the character. In every round I felt I was struggling to find something interesting or effective to do. My best use to the party was because I had some wands of Bull's, Bear's, and Barks (with flavor as having crafted them from a ram's horn, a deer antler, and a stick) and used them for buffing. Other than that I stone shaped twice which was interesting and call lightning the one time I had it prepared.
Wild shape I mostly used to buff myself and fly/swim. I never got what kind of natural attacks I had, so I just assumed I couldn't use them or was non-proficient since it wasn't in the spell description. Had I had them, it would have been nothing compared to our meleeists in the party, so I treated wild shape as a permanent natural armor/stat bonus. Once I got blinded so I turned into a bat and thoroughly annoyed people before I was cured.
This disappoints me, because I am looking at the druid and thinking I would never play one for much the reasons you pointed out here.
Without playtesting it, but with well over 3 decades of gaming experience to bring to bear on the analysis, I had feared druids would be exactly whta you described.
Having your experience confirm that analysis makes me sad, because my daughter who is just strarting to get into D&D really wants to be a druid, but she's MMO-savvy enough that it won't take her very long to realize how "nerfed" her class choice will turn out to be.
I dont see them as being nerfed...brought in line yes but not bad...they are no longer untouchable gods of walking death anymore is all.
Now they have a use and things they can and can not do. If it was me they be more like the PHB2 version
I played a 16th level Druid in a High Level playtest recently. Unlike many others here, I went ahead and decided to play an Elven "blaster" Druid with the Water Domain. First and foremost, I can say without any reservations that the Natural Spell Feat is no longer overpowered - it allowed my Druid to fly around and cast spells, but my ability score bonuses weren't jacked up through the roof like in 3.X. Unless you have some crazy ability scores, you're going to have to make a choice - either be a Wild Shape brawler with just enough spells to buff your natural weapons and a lot of Barbarian levels tacked on, or a straight caster that uses their Wild Shape forms to gain a lot of utility.
Casting in Elemental Form also had the usual drawbacks - like not being able to use consumable items in combat. Make sure you drop all the stuff on the ground that you want to carry with you while in Elemental Form before you go charging into combat, folks. And if you're a caster Druid, you'd better make sure that you have a Freedom of Movement spell memorized - Wild Shape is no longer an "I WIN GRAPPLES LOL" button that you can push at anytime.
I'll also make the same observation that some people have also said about Blaster Wizards - the escalation of HP totals in the game is making it difficult for blasters to keep up in terms of doing damage. Between the HD increase and the Favored Class HP (which almost everyone has), I don't think it would be remiss to change all of the variable damage spells so that they inflict D6+1 HP per level. So a Fireball from a 16th level Wizard would inflict 10D6+16 damage per blast.
Other notes:
We have a 4th level Gnome Druid.
The idea is she wanted to be mounted and not on a horse, but being able to use the animal companion. This is alot easier to do with a smaller character race at low level,obviosuly.
Shes been taking mounted feats. She has no intention of picking up natural spell at all.
When she was built (20 points) she got a 10 str on purpose (because small weapons on top of negative damage due to low str are just too annoying.)
She will do alot of wild shaping (even thou she's small)
I would suggest, personally;
The druid needs claws (maybe 2nd or third level) that she can use in non wild shape form.
I still like the idea of being able to take a hybrid wild shape form (like a werewolf)
There should be a feat that lets you have extra wild shapes per day, like the cleric has extra channel energies per day.
Drop the unilimited wild shapes at 20th level (by then they have so many that last so long....) and give us a feat that lets us have some more wild shapes at lower levels.
I still think animal companion could use a little boost (not a ton just a little) maybe even some more druid spells that buff the companion.
I think either Gnomes or halflings should have favored class druid. We have TWO little races that are favored Bards.
Gnomes used to be illusionists then it switched to bards, now its sorcerors and bards?
Persoanlly, wizard and druid make the most sense (wizard because illusionist is where they started and druid because they are very woodsy and already have things like speak with animals... Gnomes are basically PC Fey.)
Halfings seem much more story teller types to me (most of that idea is comming from tolkien) and of course rogue is almost a scared cow with the halfling (mostly due to a certain burgular named baggins) as the orginial basic DnD halfling "sheriff" was basically a fighter/theif.
But I do think ONE of the little races should have a favored class of druid.
I'll let you all know how the mounted gnome druid goes.
@Pendagast: I believe Jason (or another head of the Paizoa) posted somewhere that Favored Classes will work such that every Character can pick one Favored Class of their choice. And I believe Half-Elves can pick TWO Classes of their choice to be "Favored", which to me feels in line with their 2nd Ed. flavor of being the good multiclass-er.
@Sueki: I agree about the HP inflation: If it's not adjusted back down, Evocation spells should probably get that minor bump to keep up (and probably abilities like Breath Weapons, as well). IMHO, I'd actually prefer at least Wizards going back to d4 hp (Sorcerors @d6 is fine by me), and Rogues also dropping back to d6. Since the Hit Die type are listed explicitly for each class, not generically "derived" from BAB, there really ISN'T a need for the BAB:HD correlation (and d12 Barbarians & Dragon Disciples break it anyways). I'd rather see a flat (or racial derived) 1st level bump, which doesn't really change the upper game while reducing the swinginess of 1st level.
(and maintains Fighters/Rangers/Paladins' relative HP advantage vs. Wizards, for example.)
@Pendagast: I believe Jason (or another head of the Paizoa) posted somewhere that Favored Classes will work such that every Character can pick one Favored Class of their choice. And I believe Half-Elves can pick TWO Classes of their choice to be "Favored", which to me feels in line with their 2nd Ed. flavor of being the good multiclass-er.
Wow. I knew about the first part, but I didn't know about the thing with Half-Elves. That would be pretty swanky!
@Pendagast: I believe Jason (or another head of the Paizoa) posted somewhere that Favored Classes will work such that every Character can pick one Favored Class of their choice. And I believe Half-Elves can pick TWO Classes of their choice to be "Favored", which to me feels in line with their 2nd Ed. flavor of being the good multiclass-er.Wow. I knew about the first part, but I didn't know about the thing with Half-Elves. That would be pretty swanky!
SWANKY indeed, suddenly there are ALOT of elven women finding human men attractive in Golarian lately, because of all the numerous half-elves popping up!
Phantasmal Killer is still broken. We killed a Marilith in the first round of combat thanks to this spell. It should do damage dice like Slay Living (12d6+1 point per caster level).
That must have been pretty terrible saves made. Vs. a +10 casting modifier an unprepared Marilith would only need a 10 on the Will or a 5 on the Fort save to avoid death (9% chance of dying). Even against a +12 with greater spell focus a prepared Marilith (Unholy Aura at will) only has a 3.5% chance of dying.
I think that's fairly reasonable.
Phantasmal Killer is still broken. We killed a Marilith in the first round of combat thanks to this spell. It should do damage dice like Slay Living (12d6+1 point per caster level). That must have been pretty terrible saves made. Vs. a +10 casting modifier an unprepared Marilith would only need a 10 on the Will or a 5 on the Fort save to avoid death (9% chance of dying). Even against a +12 with greater spell focus a prepared Marilith (Unholy Aura at will) only has a 3.5% chance of dying.
I think that's fairly reasonable.
Personally, I think it would be much more reasonable if she just took 12D6 + 1 point of damage per level of the caster instead of dropping over stone dead (much like the rest of the SoD spells are set up now).
Personally, I think it would be much more reasonable if she just took 12D6 + 1 point of damage per level of the caster instead of dropping over stone dead (much like the rest of the SoD spells are set up now).
Disagree. I don't like the fact that SoDs become just damage. The real problem with SoDs in 3.0 were that the percentage chance of success could be jacked up to near 80+%. In 3.5 the percentage chance was lowered to ~50% optimized but you could find ways to cast twice, increasing the over all chance to ~75%.
In 1st ed and 2nd ed, SoDs always existed but were considered useless as the saves of the PCs were reduced the chance of success to ~35% at low-mid levels to 5% at low-high levels. This was retconned to 15% for any non demigod somewhere in 2nd ed. Combined with an inability to cast multiple times to stack the chances, SoDs were mostly last resort types or ignored for escape spells like teleport.
As long as you can manage the percentage chances to be low and prevent stacking by multiple tries in 1 round, IMO it provides both flavor and an interesting last resort. Of course there is the differentiation from 4e as well, as if too many things look like 4e, then pathfinder should just be abandoned as an alternate system
Phantasmal Killer is still broken. We killed a Marilith in the first round of combat thanks to this spell. It should do damage dice like Slay Living (12d6+1 point per caster level). That must have been pretty terrible saves made. Vs. a +10 casting modifier an unprepared Marilith would only need a 10 on the Will or a 5 on the Fort save to avoid death (9% chance of dying). Even against a +12 with greater spell focus a prepared Marilith (Unholy Aura at will) only has a 3.5% chance of dying.
I think that's fairly reasonable.
Personally, I think it would be much more reasonable if she just took 12D6 + 1 point of damage per level of the caster instead of dropping over stone dead (much like the rest of the SoD spells are set up now).
OK, saying that the spell is only broken 3.5% of the time is like saying your car is fine if it only breaks down once a month. All instadeath attacks should be eliminated. Period. I'm not saying that they shouldn't do a lot of damage, I just don't want a 50 hp wizard dieing from the same 4th level spell that can kill a 990 hp maximum advance kraken!
|
OK, saying that the spell is only broken 3.5% of the time is like saying your car is fine if it only breaks down once a month. All instadeath attacks should be eliminated. Period. I'm not saying that they shouldn't do a lot of damage, I just don't want a 50 hp wizard dieing from the same 4th level spell that can kill a 990 hp maximum advance kraken!
The game is predicated on random dice rolls so actually stuff like this will happen from time to time - complaining about randomness is basically complaining about the fundamental basis of the game. And it cuts both ways - PCs get bad dice too. Save or die might be a problem, but since some people like them and some people don't (I don't, personally, at least as a DM using them on PCs - players can use them with no problem) I don't really see them going away. The real issue is how hard they are to save against - they are normally only reliable against lower level chaff, as the 3.5% chance indicates (I also remeber a thread here that was basically about "poor" casters and how they wanted effects from these killer spells even on a failed save, so they didn't "waste" a casting if it didn't go off). And the chance of a 990hp monster failing two saves (Phantasmal Killer gives you two, remember, so it's only really effective at killing rogues) is negligible.
OK, saying that the spell is only broken 3.5% of the time is like saying your car is fine if it only breaks down once a month. All instadeath attacks should be eliminated. Period. I'm not saying that they shouldn't do a lot of damage, I just don't want a 50 hp wizard dieing from the same 4th level spell that can kill a 990 hp maximum advance kraken!The game is predicated on random dice rolls so actually stuff like this will happen from time to time - complaining about randomness is basically complaining about the fundamental basis of the game. And it cuts both ways - PCs get bad dice too. Save or die might be a problem, but since some people like them and some people don't (I don't, personally, at least as a DM using them on PCs - players can use them with no problem) I don't really see them going away. The real issue is how hard they are to save against - they are normally only reliable against lower level chaff, as the 3.5% chance indicates (I also remeber a thread here that was basically about "poor" casters and how they wanted effects from these killer spells even on a failed save, so they didn't "waste" a casting if it didn't go off). And the chance of a 990hp monster failing two saves (Phantasmal Killer gives you two, remember, so it's only really effective at killing rogues) is negligible.
The game is predicated on random rolls, but not absolutely random rolls. A bastard sword, no matter how specialized you get in it never does 1 to infinity damage, and that is what you have to accept is OK if you think death effects are balanced. You have to say it is OK for some things to do infinity damage. I'm don't think you have to go that far. What is wrong with putting a reasonable damage cap on Phantasmal killer? Is it so offensive to some people that they now may not be able to instantly slay a great wyrm white dragon with a paltry 4th level spell. As far as the odds go they are exactly one in four hundred or 0.25%. I know that seem like nothing but that is the chance that that creature has of dieing every time a "swingy" instant death spell is cast. How the hell do creatures like great wyrm whites ever get to be great wyrms if they can be oneshotted by a paltry 4th level spell. I just don't see the reason to leave it in if they have already taken out the majority of higher level instant death attacks either.
|
|
For this to be a reasonable point, the party would need to be facing a "Great White" all the time, for the event to be likely to manifest. otherwise, 0.25% is totally negligible. Yes, it might happen, but so rarely that it can effectively be ignored - the PC would cast their spell, it almost certainly won't work, wasted action. The extent to which "save or die" in this context is an issue depends on how hard the saves are. Phantasmal Killer seems to me a pretty fair spell - you get two saves, each off a different type of saving throw to minimise a PCs weaknesses. That significantly reduces the likelihood of failing to save, and so seems reasonably appropriate for a 4th level spell. And as it is 4th level, the chances of it impacting on a high level creature is not very high.
If, on the the other hand, you simply don't like the notion of save or die (which I don't especially, but for reasons of dramatic tension and having a good fight rather than because I am particularly concerned about the mechanics) then that is a slightly different issue. I think it would be disappointing to have a climactic fight finished with a single spell. But by them, I would expect the DM to have some idea of what his PCs are capable of and to plan accordingly. This is because (1) a decent boss should know his enemy and (2) a decent DM should challenge his PCs (plus it's fun to see the look on their faces when a "dead cert" doesn't work). As a DM, I would not use a save or die on a PC except in very specific, very rare circumstances, because I think it is lame for a PC (and for the player, and the DM too) to simply keel over due to a failed save.
But I also wouldn't really want to ban save or die either. They are part of the game up to 3e (and don't exist in 4e) and are quite good at inducing clammy moments for PCs. If I was going to use one, I'd probably make it so the PC was very likely to make the save, or there was some easy get-out which would neutralise the effect.
EDIT: As for how do great wyrm whites get to be great wyrm whites: luck, cunning and DM fiat. If I need one, it will survive - I don't really need to justify it in any other way.
A low chance success save or die spell is extremely dangerous to use. Not dangerous to the opposing monster but to the party. Every round someone casts a save or die that is resisted, the effect is the equivalent of him telling the DM he does nothing except maybe a move action. No buffs, no healing, no debuff spells, no nothing. If this course of action is done over lets say 3 rounds, it is the equivalent of (total party number -1) vs monster CR for those 3 rounds.
This tends to lead to many bad things happening to some people in the party especially on a boss fight and is the reason why most people dump the save or dies in 1e and 2e.
If a save or die breaks up a plot because of an unforeseen death of some BBEG, I would like to point out this: Storylines adapt to the circumstances unless you only accept a rigid storyline. BBEG dies, contingencies happen, whether clone, contingency, ally resurrecting etc. If the party is smart enough to not kill the BBEG but imprison him, then his leftenants step up to the plate
....If the party is smart enough to not kill the BBEG but imprison him, then his leftenants step up to the plate
Ha! "LEFTenants" When was the last time this word was used??
1881?Lieutenant is the word. (pronounced LEV-tenant in former British colonies and the UK but the spelling isnt different)
LEFTennant was an american colonist (un-educated) mispronunciation of the word.
LEFTennant was an american colonist (un-educated) mispronunciation of the word.
We are good at stuff like that
Personally, I think it would be much more reasonable if she just took 12D6 + 1 point of damage per level of the caster instead of dropping over stone dead (much like the rest of the SoD spells are set up now).Disagree. I don't like the fact that SoDs become just damage. The real problem with SoDs in 3.0 were that the percentage chance of success could be jacked up to near 80+%. In 3.5 the percentage chance was lowered to ~50% optimized but you could find ways to cast twice, increasing the over all chance to ~75%.
Only 50 to 75%? Thank god for small miracles! :lol:
The fact of the matter is that SoD spells are extremely "swingy" and they have a tendency to 1) kill both PCs and monsters stone dead and 2) derail both combat encounters and plotlines. I suspect that this is the reason that every other SoD spell in Pathfinder has been changed to a direct damage spell, and I don't think that it's unreasonable to extend this logic to Phantasmal Killer - even if there's "only" a 3% chance that the spell might derail the game.
In 1st ed and 2nd ed, SoDs always existed but were considered useless as the saves of the PCs were reduced the chance of success to ~35% at low-mid levels to 5% at low-high levels. This was retconned to 15% for any non demigod somewhere in 2nd ed. Combined with an inability to cast multiple times to stack the chances, SoDs were mostly last resort types or ignored for escape spells like teleport.
That pretty much sums up how they handled SoDs in 2nd Edition - instead of directly addressing the "swingy" effects of these spells, they chose to simply make them obsolete and irrelevant past a certain level. This isn't really a solution to the problem, and it certainly isn't one that we can apply here.
As long as you can manage the percentage chances to be low and prevent stacking by multiple tries in 1 round, IMO it provides both flavor and an interesting last resort. Of course there is the differentiation from 4e as well, as if too many things look like 4e, then pathfinder should just be abandoned as an alternate system
Bad spell mechanics do not provide "flavor". This is just a badly designed spell that's become a Sacred Cow and needs to be turned into burger meat. I believe that Pathfinder offers quite a bit to differentiate itself from 4E - we don't need to keep clunky old gameplay relics around to do that.
For this to be a reasonable point, the party would need to be facing a "Great White" all the time, for the event to be likely to manifest. otherwise, 0.25% is totally negligible.
Great. What about the 3% that we were discussing earlier? Happened to me last week, so from where I'm standing, it doesn't seem so "negligible".
Yes, it might happen, but so rarely that it can effectively be ignored - the PC would cast their spell, it almost certainly won't work, wasted action. The extent to which "save or die" in this context is an issue depends on how hard the saves are. Phantasmal Killer seems to me a pretty fair spell - you get two saves, each off a different type of saving throw to minimise a PCs weaknesses. That significantly reduces the likelihood of failing to save, and so seems reasonably appropriate for a 4th level spell. And as it is 4th level, the chances of it impacting on a high level creature is not very high.
See above. And what about the 0.25% of the time when it DOES happen and you end up with a victorious 4th level character and a dead BBEG? Just because the spell doesn't break often doesn't mean that it isn't broken.
If, on the the other hand, you simply don't like the notion of save or die (which I don't especially, but for reasons of dramatic tension and having a good fight rather than because I am particularly concerned about the mechanics) then that is a slightly different issue. I think it would be disappointing to have a climactic fight finished with a single spell. But by them, I would expect the DM to have some idea of what his PCs are capable of and to plan accordingly.
We STARTED the fight with Phantasmal Killer. We got the drop on Team Monster and vaped a Marilith on the first round. Not much dramatic tension there.
This is because (1) a decent boss should know his enemy and (2) a decent DM should challenge his PCs (plus it's fun to see the look on their faces when a "dead cert" doesn't work). As a DM, I would not use a save or die on a PC except in very specific, very rare circumstances, because I think it is lame for a PC (and for the player, and the DM too) to simply keel over due to a failed save.
Then you're pulling your punches, and not every DM is going to do that. I refuse to balance a game system based around the assumption that "Aubrey doesn't like to use SoD spells on characters in his games".
And here's another question: are your characters also pulling their punches, or are they throwing SoDs all over the place?
But I also wouldn't really want to ban save or die either. They are part of the game up to 3e (and don't exist in 4e) and are quite good at inducing clammy moments for PCs. If I was going to use one, I'd probably make it so the PC was very likely to make the save, or there was some easy get-out which would neutralise the effect.
While you're at it, I think that we should bring back THAC0, only Humans should be Paladins, Elves shouldn't be able to get past 15th level as Wizards, and Bard should be a Prestige Class.
Oh, wait. All of those things were eliminated because they were retarded. Maybe SoD and SoS spells also fall into that category?
There are other ways to create "clammy moments" for PCs then falling back on outdated, poorly designed game mechanics.
A low chance success save or die spell is extremely dangerous to use. Not dangerous to the opposing monster but to the party. Every round someone casts a save or die that is resisted, the effect is the equivalent of him telling the DM he does nothing except maybe a move action. No buffs, no healing, no debuff spells, no nothing. If this course of action is done over lets say 3 rounds, it is the equivalent of (total party number -1) vs monster CR for those 3 rounds.
The problem with this logic is that spell DCs scale up so much in 3.X, you're not really looking at a "low chance of success" for most SoD spells. Phantasmal Killer is an exception (it offers two saves, and maybe that needs to be fixed), but your Slay Livings and Fingers Of Death and Disintegrates and the like have very good chances of success, even against enemies with high Saves. And given how easy it is to acquire stat-boosting items in PRPG, I don't forsee this issue going away anytime soon.
The problem with this logic is that spell DCs scale up so much in 3.X, you're not really looking at a "low chance of success" for most SoD spells. Phantasmal Killer is an exception (it offers two saves, and maybe that needs to be fixed), but your Slay Livings and Fingers Of Death and Disintegrates and the like have very good chances of success, even against enemies with high Saves. And given how easy it is to acquire stat-boosting items in PRPG, I don't forsee this issue going away anytime soon.
Eh, i already listed that as the problem in 3.5. You have missed the actual point. The problem lies not with SoDs, the problem lies with the percentage chances of successfully executing it.
Like i have mentioned, if a plot gets derailed just because someone got lucky on a SoD, that means the plot is too rigid. If for example, the fighter crits with all his attacks (a well built one vs a AC he can hiot at 50% on his last attack will actually have a good chance of doing so), you face the same problem.
If we removed randomness from the game (and the DM's ability to respond to that randomness), then there is no need to actually do combat, as a calculator would have solved who would win.
In 2e, it is not impossible to see someone actually fail a save vs spells at 15% but it is rare enough that when pulled out as a last resort and actually succeeds, you get high fives all around the table. This is what I, when i DM want to see. Something my players will remember 10 years down the road.
If they fail and its a TPK, fine. Players know sometimes the dice works for you, sometimes against (qv dice superstitions)
|
|
The problem with this logic is that spell DCs scale up so much in 3.X, you're not really looking at a "low chance of success" for most SoD spells. Phantasmal Killer is an exception (it offers two saves, and maybe that needs to be fixed), but your Slay Livings and Fingers Of Death and Disintegrates and the like have very good chances of success, even against enemies with high Saves. And given how easy it is to acquire stat-boosting items in PRPG, I don't forsee this issue going away anytime soon.
I don't particularly disagree with that, though said stat boosters can also improve saves too to the same extent. But the point is that it isn't a "broken" mechanic - arguably, the point a lot of the denizens made was that these are exactly the sort of spells that should be chosen and used, because they work well. Since the point of the game is kiloing things and taking their stuff, they are potentially quite efficient at that.
The problem with them is their impact on dramatic tension, not because they killing things - ultimately, all spells exist to make the PCs more efficient at killing things, either directly or indirectly. It is quite boring to routinely kill things on the throw of a single die. But it can also, occasionaly, be quite memorable and exciting - it depends on the context. If your marilith example was for a bunch of PCs who could have killed the marilith anyway, then it probably would not have been great. But if the Pcs would have been otherwise minced, it is probably a great result (and that isn't simply level dependent, but also down to the level of attrition the party has suffered up to that point). It isn't even clear whether it is advantageous overall to use SoD over, say evocations - it is probably dependent on context, party composition, types of enemy, number of enemies, relative levels, and so on.
4e has taken SoDs away but I don't think it was considered to be bad mechanically - actually, given their relative simplicity, they are probably much easier to predict. The problem was the fun element (the same reason they also took out Sunder and level drain) as SoD can be dull. I don't have a problem with that, personally. But taking them out of 3e doesn't seem to me to usher in a new Nirvana.
Your arguments strike me as being much more about your tolerance for risk and extreme events and much less about a "problem" with SoD - I find it interesting that in my experience of playing 3e, very few players have ever selected them, which suggests their uber-ness is possibly overstated. A PC probably gets a few actions in a single fight - a few rounds is normally the limit, though not always. Does he really want to use SoDs, use up the spell, and have quite likely have nothing to show for his action? It depends on the player, arguably, and their tolerance for that.
(As an aside, a number of the spells you quote also require range touch attacks, so the victim also gets the benefit of a Touch AC too. Most characters with low Touch AC have good Forts, so they are less likely to get clobbered bt instant death effects which almost always require Fort saves. Also, they are usually not area effect. I appreciate that not all SoDs are like that, especially at much higher levels, but then how many 9th level slots will people have for that stuff?)
Eh, i already listed that as the problem in 3.5. You have missed the actual point. The problem lies not with SoDs, the problem lies with the percentage chances of successfully executing it.
There's no problem executing Save Or Die spells. The Save DCs for these spells are so jacked up at higher levels that if you direct a SoD or SoS spell at someone that has a low Save against that spell, they are pretty much out of the game. When you have Fighters getting hit with Dominate Person and Insanity and they only have a 5% to 15% chance of saving against these effects, that seems a little overly powerful to me. And given the lowered costs of stat boost items in Pathfinder, I suspect that this problem will only escalate in higher level games under the PRPG rules.
Like i have mentioned, if a plot gets derailed just because someone got lucky on a SoD, that means the plot is too rigid. If for example, the fighter crits with all his attacks (a well built one vs a AC he can hiot at 50% on his last attack will actually have a good chance of doing so), you face the same problem.
This has a lot less to do with "salvaging plots" and more to do with ensuring that an encounter of a given CR actually remains at that CR. How is a GM supposed to come up with encounters that are a balanced challenge for the party whenever there are SoS and SoD spells flying around and the power level of each group can be instantly dropped by a single SoD spell? It's a problem that cuts both ways: if Team Monster gets the drop and fires off a few SoD spells, you'll probably have two party members down and the encounter's challenge rating has now shot through the roof. If the players get the drop and do the same to Team Monster, then now they are free to run roughshod over the remaining opponents with very little resistance. SoS and SoD spells rapidly change the dynamics of an encounter without requiring much tactical effort. Fighters can do a lot of damage, but they have to actually expend some effort to be able to do so - Wizards just have to take a standard action and someone's out of the combat.
If we removed randomness from the game (and the DM's ability to respond to that randomness), then there is no need to actually do combat, as a calculator would have solved who would win.
I hate to break this to you, but math is ultimately what you and your character are depending on to calculate whether or not they are going to be successful or not in any endeavor. You can denigrate the idea of addressing and balancing that math as "handing the game over to a calculator", but mathematics has been the foundation of both paper and video games since they were invented.
And frankly, I'd like to see MORE randomness introduced to the game, thank you very much. I'd like to see encounters at higher levels where the entire outcome isn't based around a few "swingy" saving throws.
Recovery Saves = more dice rolls = more randomness.
So if you're "pro-randomness", then I don't know why you're arguing with me. :)
In 2e, it is not impossible to see someone actually fail a save vs spells at 15% but it is rare enough that when pulled out as a last resort and actually succeeds, you get high fives all around the table. This is what I, when i DM want to see. Something my players will remember 10 years down the road.
If they fail and its a TPK, fine. Players know sometimes the dice works for you, sometimes against (qv dice superstitions)
Good DMs make games that are remembered for 10 years, not bad game mechanics.