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.
I submit to you that SoD and SoS spells actually reduce dramatic tension. Here are some reasons why:
1) The PCs typically have better gear then Team Monster, which means that their save DCs will be higher then enemy NPCs of the same level. It makes those instant-kill spells all the easier to pull off.
2) Anytime the PCs face off against a single monster or a pair of monsters, they can focus-fire their SoS and SoD spells and take down one (or both) monsters with little expenditure of resources early in the fight.
3) SoS and SoD spells can instantly change the balance between the power levels of the players and their opposition with just a few failed saving throws. Either the players are going to faceroll the opposition, or the party is going to get wiped out.
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 was quite memorable, but not for reasons of dramatic tension. It was memorable because we managed to drop one of the most fearsome demons in the Monster Manual with a single 4th level spell. It was more laughable and disappointing then anything else. Frankly, SoD spells are a pretty lame way for a character to go out. It was the rest of the combat - when we were fighting for our lives - that was actually memorable.
I realize that you find SoS and SoD spells to be a useful dramatic prop in the hands of Team Monster, but it's also a prop that the players can use to beat Team Monster to death with very easily.
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.
SoS and SoD spells are the best spells in the game right now. These spells that are the reason why we have Six Tiers of gameplay and all of the spellcasters occupy the upper tiers. There are going to be VERY few situations where casting an Evocation spells is going to be better then using a SoS or a SoD. Your best bet in most combat situations is to use Summoned Monsters to lock your opponents down and then choose and use the appropriate SoS/SoD spell to pick off your opponents one by one.
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.
SoD and SoS spells were removed from 4E because they were considered to be very bad mechanically. Go pick up a copy of Dungeon Master For Dummies from the 3.5 era and you'll see precisely why they opted to remove these effects from their game and why I'm calling for these effects to be removed from this game. They are too swingy, they aren't very fun, and they're just being kept around as a Sacred Cow.
Also: they took out Sunder because non-spellcasters are completely boned when you start chopping up their weapons, and they removed level drain for the same reasons that it was streamlined in Pathfinder - the old mechanic was a pain in the ass. Implementing Recovery Saves for SoS spells isn't going to give us Nirvana, but it's a much better situation then what we have on our hands right now.
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.
It isn't about a tolerance for risk and extreme events at all. It's about the fact that these spells are overpowered and aren't balanced in their current incarnation. Getting hit with a SoS or a SoD spell is like your DM giving your character a revolver and having them play a quick round of Russian Roulette. I don't know about you, but I don't particularly fancy Russian Roulette - I'd much prefer to be fighing monsters and exploring dungeons, thank you very much.
And as far as your players not using SoS or SoD spells: are you serious? I abused the hell out of SoS spells back in 3.5. Spellcaster + Spell Focus + Stat Boosting Items = facerolled monsters. And if I couldn't Dominate or Baleful Polymorph a monster, then so be it - it would give the non-spellcasters something to do besides carry stuff around.
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.
Once you get to higher levels, there will be such a gulf between your Spell DCs and their Saving Throws that success will almost be assured. And hey, I have a million spell slots anyway, so I'm not really risking very much in the process.
I recently played a Human Druid from about 10th to 13th level, with a rhinocerous (later a smilodon, from Frostburn) animal companion. I abused elemental shape, spending most of my time as a large/huge earth elemental. I'd occasionally shape into an air elemental as well, for flight, scouting capabilities, and the Dex boost for ranged/ranged touch attacks. On the spell side, I'd buff the crap out of myself & my companion. Hide from animals got a lot of use, as did SNA and cloud spells, like murderous mist, ice storm and haboob.
What is Murderous Mist and "haboob"? That doesn't sound Core to me. :lol:
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.
Eh, that's my point, thank you for repeating it to me. You are stuck in only seeing 3.5. Pathfinder represents a chance to fix the problems of 3.5 while keeping all the good points.
As for martial classes having only 5-15% vs will saves, this only happens if the caster player (or DM for NPCs) is more experienced while the martial player (or DM for NPCs). A fully optimized flying charger can 1 shot kill pretty much anything about the same CR with probably a 5% miss chance (natural 1) and even that can be reduced via rerolls through feats, spells, items, etc. More so if he has 1 level of lion totem barbarian. It really just comes down to initiative.
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.
CR at best is only a guideline. It never compensates for good or bad luck at the table. What you are saying here can also happen in the following manner:
Fighter gets moved externally or has pounce type capability or is a charger build, hits, crits, opponent dies.
Now regarding your view that the fighter needs to expend some effort to do so, i am not sure what sort of effort is involved. Character building effort? Effort to be in a position to attack?
For character building effort, both casters and martials are similar enough to be negilible. As for effort to move into a position to use your attack form, that is also similar. Both requires a path of effect to the target. The disadvantage for a melee martial only lies in
i) his movement rate/type vs ranged
ii) The damage he can take due to AoOs
For point i) it represents a relative failure during character building at least in the item department (most commonly) and is not difficult to rectify after the 1st.
For point ii) it also represents a relative failure in character building as AoO bypass is not that difficult especially when you can fly.
The final point here is that you still keep thinking that the caster in a NEW system has exactly the same chances of affecting an opponent and there is no cost to a SoD. A SoD's cost is in its failure. When it fails, you have basically done nothing for that round expect a move equivalent action.
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. :)
Your randomness seems to have been based on merely "combat should happen as i the DM see fit and it should be 50%." Your response here only supports that conclusion. "Swingy" will never happen because if so the martial classes might as well open a bedroll and go take a nap. Or are you restricting "Swingy" only to saves?
Lets take the switch to damage you are advocating. That only makes it less random. Over a large sample or number of dice in this case, the average happens more and more. So if you switch to a SoD = 20d6 damage or whatever, you are merely restricting the "randomness". Sufficient amounts of this and statistics would tell you when you would win on average and when you would not. That is what i meant by resolving everything by a calculator.
On the other hand, i have no problem letting the dice fall where they may even if the BBEG of a supposed climax is one shotted by a spell, by a charger, by a rogue with 2 bags of holding, etc. It may in fact even be more memorable and a moment for laughter.
Good DMs make games that are remembered for 10 years, not bad game mechanics.
Forgive me if this does not apply to you but this IMO is normally the thinking of a DM who wants to write a book and believes he has a wonderful plot filled with tear inducing storylines, hateful BBEGs, etc.
All that is great but thats a book, not a campaign. A campaign should have no problem responding to a lucky roll.
An un-analyzed quickthink solution would be simply give every martial character the indomitable will feat for free if will saves are really so terrible. Fort save not enough? Add in a similar mechanic as indomitable will. Repeat for Reflex if desired
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
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.....
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.
Hello, Sueki Suezo. First off, I'd like to compliment you on your reasoned tone of voice and eloquent explanation of your position.
A couple of questions:
1) Do you object to all manner of attacks that bypass hit points? (I remember reading a Jonathan Tweet design article wherein he regretted how undead turning didn't key off the creatures' hit point totals.) If so, what's your impression of spells which, say, damage attributes?
2) What's your impression of the GameMastery Critical Hits and Fumbles chart? (I ask because they make it very much more likely for a single combat incident to end the fight. It's not preposterous at all for a tyro wizard fighting a marilith to send her to a random plane with his Ray of Frost.)
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.....
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.
Hello, Sueki Suezo. First off, I'd like to compliment you on your reasoned tone of voice and eloquent explanation of your position.
A couple of questions:
1) Do you object to all manner of attacks that bypass hit points? (I remember reading a Jonathan Tweet design article wherein he regretted how undead turning didn't key off the creatures' hit point totals.) If so, what's your impression of spells which, say, damage attributes?
2) What's your impression of the GameMastery Critical Hits and Fumbles chart? (I ask because they make it very much more likely for a single combat incident to end the fight. It's not preposterous at all for a tyro wizard fighting a marilith to send her to a random plane with his Ray of Frost.)
Personally, I hate stat affecting spells and poisons.
But turning used to key off HD which is essntially the same as HP totals.Current channel energy is totally differnt (and Im not sure I like the weak part on the flee, they seem to come right back)
And Rayf of frost blasting creatures to another plane, IS preposterous.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
1) Do you object to all manner of attacks that bypass hit points? (I remember reading a Jonathan Tweet design article wherein he regretted how undead turning didn't key off the creatures' hit point totals.) If so, what's your impression of spells which, say, damage attributes?
But turning used to key off HD which is essntially the same as HP totals.
Current channel energy is totally differnt (and I'm not sure I like the weak part on the flee, they seem to come right back)And Rayf of frost blasting creatures to another plane, IS preposterous.
Pendagast,
(laughs) From my perspective, not playtesting Pathfinder, turning undead still keys off Hit Dice.
But that's not the same as current hit points, which was Tweet's point. There's nothing a 3.5 cleric's allies can do to assist in her turning attempts. For example, the barbarian whacking at the vampire doesn't make it any more vulnerable to turning.
I recall that some Forgotten Realms product introduced a cheap dwoemer to place on weapons, such that any blow would reduce the target's Spell Resistance for a round or two. I think it would be nice to have an analogous ability, that would make an undead target more vulnerable to turning attempts.
On the other subject, we're in agreement. I am baffled by people who use the GameMastery Critical Hits --and particular, Fumbles-- decks, and also complain that low-level combats are "swingy".
I swear by the knucklebones of 2d10 aasimar, if you don't like "swingy" combats, stay away from those decks!!
Eh, that's my point, thank you for repeating it to me. You are stuck in only seeing 3.5. Pathfinder represents a chance to fix the problems of 3.5 while keeping all the good points.
I'm stuck in seeing it in terms of 3.5... because nothing has changed in Pathfinder from 3.5. It's still the same spell system. If anything, the situation has gotten WORSE because the cost of purchasing stat-boosting items has dropped.
As for martial classes having only 5-15% vs will saves, this only happens if the caster player (or DM for NPCs) is more experienced while the martial player (or DM for NPCs).
Um, no? This is a pretty well-defined mathematical value. There's no amount of gamer experience that's going to hand-wave math away.
A fully optimized flying charger can 1 shot kill pretty much anything about the same CR with probably a 5% miss chance (natural 1) and even that can be reduced via rerolls through feats, spells, items, etc. More so if he has 1 level of lion totem barbarian. It really just comes down to initiative.
1) You're assuming that fighters are going to be flying. If anything, the Wizard is more likely to be flying. Actually, they are more likely to just "Scry-And-Die" things then anything else, but that's a whole other issue.
2) Fighters have a great deal of difficulty surviving against creatures of their own CR once they get past 10th level - they tend to get turned into burger meat instead.
3) Given their lack of movement options and the escalating number of HP in the Pathfinder game, it's going to be difficult for a Barbarian to get into position to full attack, much less initiate one against a spellcaster. Chances are far better that you'll be stopped by an indestructible wall or Dominated before you ever get close enough to hit your target.
4) Lion Totem Barbarian isn't part of the Pathfinder playtest. I believe that a great deal of your thinking lies in the assumption that this will be considered "core" and will be available for all Barbarians. It is not. The ability to Pounce is indeed a very mighty ability - some would say overpowered - but not all non-spellcasters are going to have it, and not every GM is going to allow it in their game.
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.CR at best is only a guideline. It never compensates for good or bad luck at the table.
It certainly can't compensate for luck whenever everyone's life and death revolves around a few saving throw rolls! There's really no point in having a CR value if you can kill or neutralize players and monsters so quickly and with so little effort. The only thing you can really do is 1) not use SoS or SoD spells on your players and let them run rough-shod over your balanced encounters or 2) send wave after wave of monsters against them until they use up all of their spells and can actually settle in for a real fight.
What you are saying here can also happen in the following manner:
Fighter gets moved externally or has pounce type capability or is a charger build, hits, crits, opponent dies.
Under most circumstances, a Fighter at high levels is going to get pwned before he even gets in close enough to murder the target. But assuming that your statement was true, then we're basically looking at a situation where the game breaks down and becomes Rocket Tag at higher levels.
Now regarding your view that the fighter needs to expend some effort to do so, i am not sure what sort of effort is involved. Character building effort? Effort to be in a position to attack?
The effort be be able to leverage a full-attack action to be effective in an encounter. Fighters have to actually move and engage their targets to unleash their full potential. Archer Fighters don't have to worry about this as much, but they can be shut down VERY easily with a Quickened Wind Wall spell (your Wizard always has one of those memorized, yes?).
A Wizard just has to move into range, cast their spell, and watch you become his slave/turn into a chicken/drop over dead or whatever they decide to do to you that day.
For character building effort, both casters and martials are similar enough to be negilible.
Afraid not. Your Fighter is Feat-Dependant and only gets so many Feats over the course of their lifetime. I can scribe as many spells into my spellbooks as I can buy or find, and I can use stat-booting items to get both more spells and increase my spell damage. Hell, even if I only get the spells given to Wizards as they level up, I'll still have more spells then you have Feats. And I can also use Staves to make free magical attacks against you that use my casting DC. At the end of the day, casters simply have more options then non-spellcasters do, whihc is why they pwn face right now.
As for effort to move into a position to use your attack form, that is also similar. Both requires a path of effect to the target. The disadvantage for a melee martial only lies in
i) his movement rate/type vs ranged
ii) The damage he can take due to AoOsFor point i) it represents a relative failure during character building at least in the item department (most commonly) and is not difficult to rectify after the 1st.
For point ii) it also represents a relative failure in character building as AoO bypass is not that difficult especially when you can fly.
AoO isn't the issue. If you're a Figher coming up on a Wizard and he's trying to kill you with AoO, then he's Doing It Wrong. It's no wonder you're able to gut him like a fish if all he's trying to do is blast you...
The final point here is that you still keep thinking that the caster in a NEW system has exactly the same chances of affecting an opponent and there is no cost to a SoD. A SoD's cost is in its failure. When it fails, you have basically done nothing for that round expect a move equivalent action.
The chances aren't the same as in 3.5, I must agree. They are BETTER. I don't have to spend nearly as much cash on all of my other magical toys, so I can go straight for the throat with crafted caster stat booting items earlier in the game then I could before.
Your randomness seems to have been based on merely "combat should happen as i the DM see fit and it should be 50%." Your response here only supports that conclusion. "Swingy" will never happen because if so the martial classes might as well open a bedroll and go take a nap. Or are you restricting "Swingy" only to saves?.
Any kind of all-or-nothing spell where a character has to make a saving throw or be taken out of the game is "swingy". And these spells are everywhere at higher levels, and they aren't as "random" as you might think. If you have a low Save against a "swingy" spell, you are more often then not totally and completely boned.
Let's take a Figher that has to make a Saving Throw against Dominate Person, shall we? This Fighter has around a 5% to 15% chance of being able to successfully resist against this spell. Let's assume that this Figher has very good gear and Iron Will and thus has a 15% chance of succeeding against the spell. Dominate Person doesn't kill the character outright - ot's actually worse because they are now not only out of combat, but they can actively fight against their former comrades.
Now, let's look at the game Russian Roulette. In Russian Roulette, you take a revolver, load one bullet into it, and then spin the barrel. You then put the pistol to your head and pull the trigger. You have a 17% chance of blowing your brains out, and a 83% chance of surviving to play another round.
A Figher actually has a better chance of surviving a round of Russian Roulette then they do against a Dominate Person spell. If you wanted to give him even odds in both situations, you'd need to load the revolver with five bullets, and even then, he'd have a 2% higher chance of not being taken out of the game then if he had to make a Saving Throw against Dominate Person.
Now do you see why I loathe SoS spells?
Lets take the switch to damage you are advocating. That only makes it less random. Over a large sample or number of dice in this case, the average happens more and more. So if you switch to a SoD = 20d6 damage or whatever, you are merely restricting the "randomness". Sufficient amounts of this and statistics would tell you when you would win on average and when you would not. That is what i meant by resolving everything by a calculator.
Well, every SoD spell in the game has been nerfed except for Phantasmal Killer, so I don't know what you're arguing here. It's the SoS spells that need to be balanced now.
Forgive me if this does not apply to you but this IMO is normally the thinking of a DM who wants to write a book and believes he has a wonderful plot filled with tear inducing storylines, hateful BBEGs, etc.
All that is great but thats a book, not a campaign. A campaign should have no problem responding to a lucky roll.
If you think making non-spellcasters feel powerless makes for a fun time and a memorable game, go for it. But we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this point.
Hello, Sueki Suezo. First off, I'd like to compliment you on your reasoned tone of voice and eloquent explanation of your position.
Thank you. I'm not always successful, but I try.
A couple of questions:
1) Do you object to all manner of attacks that bypass hit points? (I remember reading a Jonathan Tweet design article wherein he regretted how undead turning didn't key off the creatures' hit point totals.) If so, what's your impression of spells which, say, damage attributes?
I don't care for Ray of Enfeeblement or Bestow Curse at all, and CON-affecting effects are some cause for concern, but truth be told, my gaming group and I haven't done much research into the matter yet.
2) What's your impression of the GameMastery Critical Hits and Fumbles chart? (I ask because they make it very much more likely for a single combat incident to end the fight. It's not preposterous at all for a tyro wizard fighting a marilith to send her to a random plane with his Ray of Frost.)
I haven't looked at the chart in question, but any mechanic that allows for an instant kill while ignoring hit points seems like a bad idea to me. Keep in mind that whenever you say "Save Or Die", what you really mean is "spell that can do infinity damage". Save or Suck spells are, for most intents and purposes, identical. And those kinds of spells just aren't balanced, which is why 4E either stripped them out or tried to introduce some mechanics to mitigate them. And let me tell you - as much as I loathe 4E, I really hate to admit that they did something right in terms of game mechanics and planning.
|
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.
I'm glad to hear that the versatility of the Druid has survived so well into Pathfinder. In case you're curious, in Complete Warrior, there is a prestige class called the "Warshifter" which allows characters who change shape {like the druid} to get all sorts of unique perks {like immunity to critical hits, bonuses to damage and reach, and the ability to change shape at will without repetitive casting}. It may seem a bit over-kill, but I'm looking forward to see what it could do when I get the chance. If I ever do...I'm leaving for the military in a few months and I'm not coming back for over a year, so I'm hoping I meet some D&D fans in the military base in Texas.