I'll try to be breif.
At high level, even mid level, it is far more deadly to have to roll for a lot of low saves than it is to have to roll for one save with a high DC, because of the rule that nat 1s always fail.
An effect of this problem is the death by massive damage rules that are discussed on another thread. It's not that beating the DC 15 is hard, it's that if you have to make the save every round, you will die eventually.
In a 20th level game, I saw a pixie archer with 6-7 attacks per round useing sleep arrows (DC 15) pretty much end almost every combat in the dungeon that wasnt against undead/construct. Poisons offend in similar manners. I had a shuriken weilding monk that coated his shurikens in black lotus extract. Being immune to poison himself, he consistently pinged the enemies for 1d2 points of damage, and drained their con away to 0 in a matter of rounds.
Want to make a mockery of the CR system? Try sending a level 16 party up against 16 Bodaks (each CR 8). This should be a fairly easy encounter, with an ECL of 16, just right for the party. The party should be able to take *several* similar encoutners before having to rest for the day. Unfortunately, each bodak has a gaze attack against a DC 15 fort save or die. The party will almost certainly be wiped out.
So I'm begging the designers to do something about this problem. I'm not saying nix the "1's always fail" rule alltogether. But how about like.... if your saving throw modifier beats the DC by 10 points or higher, you don't have to make the roll at all? I think this would greatly improve the game.
-awp.
Definitely. Nix the 1-always-Fails for Saves.
(or, it could be required to "Confirm" the Critical Failure, rolling another 1, but that's such a minor chance and waste of time, it shouldn't be part of the standard rules.)
Or a natural 1 could be counted as a -10 penalty on your check and then if you fail the DC the effect takes place.
Wow, beat me too it!
I am sorry, I jumped your post. I posted above because I glanced over the thread list to briefly. I posted something very similar above because this has also bothered me for some time.
My suggestion was that, if you would succeed on your save without rolling the dice, then when you are forced to roll them, you must confirm a critical failure (roll of 1) with another roll of 1. I know this is a big change....but players are going to be forced to make a LOT of saves in their day and if having a big save is something they have invested in, than they should not fail 5% of the time!
Want to make a mockery of the CR system? Try sending a level 16 party up against 16 Bodaks (each CR 8). This should be a fairly easy encounter, with an ECL of 16, just right for the party. The party should be able to take *several* similar encoutners before having to rest for the day. Unfortunately, each bodak has a gaze attack against a DC 15 fort save or die. The party will almost certainly be wiped out.
That's for what blind fighting was made. And even without the feat, by closing their eyes, they can wipe out all the bodaks fairly easily.
I think that this rule needs a change to be like the abilities one. 1's not is a always fail and a natural 20 not a always success.
I'm not saying nix the "1's always fail" rule alltogether. But how about like.... if your saving throw modifier beats the DC by 10 points or higher, you don't have to make the roll at all?
Or a natural 1 could be counted as a -10 penalty on your check and then if you fail the DC the effect takes place.
These are equivalent, and about the only change I'd be willing to consider. A third, mostly equivalent, option is roll again at -20.
So essentially:
"Roll Save"
"Natural 1"
"Did you make DC 15?"
a. "No" - "You're dead"
b. "Yes" - "Roll again at -20" - "Wince"
|
At high level, even mid level, it is far more deadly to have to roll for a lot of low saves than it is to have to roll for one save with a high DC, because of the rule that nat 1s always fail.
The larger problem, of course, is that "Save Or Die Instantly" is a badly flawed game mechanic, especially when dealing with high-level characters.
No, it's *not* the larger problem, that was exactly the point of this post in the first place.
I've played under some DMs who use the 'reroll, -20' mechanic. I guess while it kind of adresses the problem, it seems that failure is nearly garunteed, and it wastes time. Hrm... I guess what I really mean is that a reroll -20 mechanic doesnt really adress the problem of having to make lots of low saves being a lot more annoying that one high save DC. That's why I'd much prefer a reroll -10, or the mechanic I suggested in the first post.
Selios, this may be true, but pcs may not have the blind fight feat, or lack the necessary knowledge (religion) to *know* to close their eyes in the first place. Sigh, in any case, this is why I provided several examples to illustrate my point, becasue I just knew that somebody would single out one of them and try to argue that it was somehow ok. That kind of threat level simply is not appropriate for a CR 16 encounter.
I also like the "natural 1 = -10, natural 20 = 30" rule. It makes a certain amount of sense, and it doesn't require any additional rolling.
|
|
Okay, let's take the first example. I'm a high level fighter with lots of hit points and a high Fortitude save. I meet a pesky pixie who pincushions me with DC 15 sleep arrows. I only go to sleep on a natural 1, but he's gonna keep shooting me until I roll that 1.
Assuming I have stated the problem correctly, my take would be to declare (as GM) that, if the fighter successfully saves against the sleep effect the first time, he's immune to the effect for 24 hours. So, no iterating the save until a 1 comes up.
Well, that's house-ruling to solve the problem. That's good DMing, but I would far prefer if the RAW didnt present the problem in the first place.
|
|
Well, that's house-ruling to solve the problem. That's good DMing, but I would far prefer if the RAW didnt present the problem in the first place.
Weeeelll, yes, in theory, but in practice the rules aren't going to catch every edge case.
One of the jobs of the GM is to spot places where strict adherence to the rules leads to bizarre and unexpected results, and adjust the situation accordingly.
I think that automatic failure on a natural 1 is a simple and useful mechanic. I'd hate to see it be made overly complicated because of issues like this that are easily solved through a simple application of common sense.
I respect that if that's the way you feel, but I really think that this comes up often enough not to be considered a corner case.
Selios, this may be true, but pcs may not have the blind fight feat, or lack the necessary knowledge (religion) to *know* to close their eyes in the first place. Sigh, in any case, this is why I provided several examples to illustrate my point, becasue I just knew that somebody would single out one of them and try to argue that it was somehow ok. That kind of threat level simply is not appropriate for a CR 16 encounter.
At 16th level, players should know how gaze attacks work. If not, I don't understand how they have reached this level. When they're all going to make saving throws each round, if they don't decide to close their eyes, they deserve to die on a 1. Everybody knows what a medusa can do with her gaze, even non d&d players. If they don't get any clue from that, they really should make new 1st level characters as their 16th is not deserved to them.
Selios, this may be true, but pcs may not have the blind fight feat, or lack the necessary knowledge (religion) to *know* to close their eyes in the first place. Sigh, in any case, this is why I provided several examples to illustrate my point, becasue I just knew that somebody would single out one of them and try to argue that it was somehow ok. That kind of threat level simply is not appropriate for a CR 16 encounter.At 16th level, players should know how gaze attacks work. If not, I don't understand how they have reached this level. When they're all going to make saving throws each round, if they don't decide to close their eyes, they deserve to die on a 1. Everybody knows what a medusa can do with her gaze, even non d&d players. If they don't get any clue from that, they really should make new 1st level characters as their 16th is not deserved to them.
But likely not know about the Bodak's gaze unless they have actually seen a bodak.
A medusa is not the same as a bodak.
And they don't deserve to die just because the player doesn't perform the action you think is correct.
Personally I do not see a problem for characters to always have that 5% change to fail. It makes high level character not invulnerable.
Even high level characters have bad days where they can get killed.
This rule should stay with a option for people that want to have adventures with superhuman characters that are immune to anything mundane.
But likely not know about the Bodak's gaze unless they have actually seen a bodak.
A medusa is not the same as a bodak.
And they don't deserve to die just because the player doesn't perform the action you think is correct.
When you're petrified, it's as you were dead for the actual fight.
And save against gaze attacks happen at your iniative. If another player has failed his save, and the others don't try anything to avert their eyes, they're really dumb (and deserve to die).If they jump from a moutain, should they deserve to die ? What's the difference if they intentionnaly meet the bodak's gaze ? They don't act cautiously. It's not all about bad luck, it's about their bad choice in the first place.
Only one 16th character with a blindfold is enough to wipe all your 20 bodaks.
|
Personally I do not see a problem for characters to always have that 5% change to fail. It makes high level character not invulnerable.
Even high level characters have bad days where they can get killed.
Right. It means they have 19 rounds or less (10 on average) to stop the baddie. The clock is ticking...
Right. It means they have 19 rounds or less (10 on average) to stop the baddie. The clock is ticking...Personally I do not see a problem for characters to always have that 5% change to fail. It makes high level character not invulnerable.
Even high level characters have bad days where they can get killed.
Good thing combats last 3-5 round then. And there are counters to death effects as well as sleep effects.
Also there is something called tactics. Just rushing in should get players killed on some occasions, even against lower level opponents.
|
|
I respect that if that's the way you feel
That's the politest way anyone has ever said that they think I'm wrong. Well played, sir.
Let's extrapolate this to a workable general rule:
"If a creature's applicable Saving Throw bonus equals or exceeds the DC of the effect, then (at the GM's discretion) the creature is automatically immune to that effect for 24 hours after making a successful Saving Throw versus the effect. This immunity extends to the same effect produced by other sources."
When my players roll a skill check or a saving throw, if they roll a 1, they roll again and subtract the result from their total. If they roll a twenty, they roll again and add the result.
So it would be:
1 - 2nd roll + modifier
Or
20 + 2nd roll + modifier
That way, you don't always fail on ones, when your high level and when you're low level you still have some chance of succeeding. There is extra rolling involved but I think that it adds extra tension to the moment. Also, my group has never shied away from rolling lots of dice. :)
But likely not know about the Bodak's gaze unless they have actually seen a bodak.
A medusa is not the same as a bodak.
And they don't deserve to die just because the player doesn't perform the action you think is correct.
When you're petrified, it's as you were dead for the actual fight.
And save against gaze attacks happen at your iniative. If another player has failed his save, and the others don't try anything to avert their eyes, they're really dumb (and deserve to die).
Sometimes, unless the creature is focusing on it's gaze attack. Then they also have to make a save.
That doesn't change the fact that the bodak is not as well known as the medusa.
And they don't deserve to die just because the player doesn't perform the action you think is correct.
If they jump from a moutain, should they deserve to die ? What's the difference if they intentionnaly meet the bodak's gaze ? They don't act cautiously. It's not all about bad luck, it's about their bad choice in the first place.
Only one 16th character with a blindfold is enough to wipe all your 20 bodaks.
What is the character going to do? Play Marco Polo with the bodaks or hope they come within range just because they really want them to?
Tying a blindfold around your eyes and running around is not acting cautiously.
But likely not know about the Bodak's gaze unless they have actually seen a bodak.
A medusa is not the same as a bodak.
And they don't deserve to die just because the player doesn't perform the action you think is correct.
When you're petrified, it's as you were dead for the actual fight.
And save against gaze attacks happen at your iniative. If another player has failed his save, and the others don't try anything to avert their eyes, they're really dumb (and deserve to die).Sometimes, unless the creature is focusing on it's gaze attack. Then they also have to make a save.
That doesn't change the fact that the bodak is not as well known as the medusa.
And they don't deserve to die just because the player doesn't perform the action you think is correct.
If they jump from a moutain, should they deserve to die ? What's the difference if they intentionnaly meet the bodak's gaze ? They don't act cautiously. It's not all about bad luck, it's about their bad choice in the first place.
Only one 16th character with a blindfold is enough to wipe all your 20 bodaks.What is the character going to do? Play Marco Polo with the bodaks or hope they come within range just because they really want them to?
Tying a blindfold around your eyes and running around is not acting cautiously.
Look at your cleric and go "Hey you channel already would ya?"
Then watch the bodak's burn under the purity of 10d6 divine damage...
OR have the paladin do it for maximum damage... Or have the wizard cast one of his great "I win" spells...
OR engage them from over 30 ft out (the range of their gaze) with ranged weapons.
Or close your eyes and wait for them to go away. With your AC where it is as a fighter they aren't going to hit anyways.
Look at your cleric and go "Hey you channel already would ya?"
Then watch the bodak's burn under the purity of 10d6 divine damage...
The situation was one 16th character.
OR have the paladin do it for maximum damage... Or have the wizard cast one of his great "I win" spells...
OR engage them from over 30 ft out (the range of their gaze) with ranged weapons.
Most of those situations don't imply that you are going to be close enough to need to close your eyes, aside from the cleric or paladin running in eyes closed channeling positive energy. And the situation was not "a 16th level character with a blindfold (but only if he can channel positive energy)".
Or close your eyes and wait for them to go away. With your AC where it is as a fighter they aren't going to hit anyways.
I'm not sure waiting out the undead would be best solution as they can, in most cases, just hang around a lot better than most characters.
And I wouldn't they say that the fighter had just wiped all the bodaks when they walk away.
But all I'm saying is saying all you need to do when confronted with creatures with gaze attacks is just close your eyes and that there are reasons for a character to risk and keep his eyes open. And that saying that any player who chose to risk it because the situation called for it deserved to lose the character, is both incorrect and rude.
I'm not disagreeing with your assertion. I agree with it, I'm just pointing out different options available to various classes to deal with this particular problem. The fighter can still keep swinging with his eyes closed, and the Bodak's are going to have to close in order to attack too, as their gaze is moot at the point he closes his eyes.
Beyond that at the point you got one PC facing that many much lower level challenges in my view one of two things are happening:
1. The DM is giving the player a chance to flex and show off how bad he is.
2. The DM is purposefully hoping for that save throw of a "1" so he can say "he killed player's character with these weak monsters, what I powerful DM I am" (or other random male ape chest beating behavior).
In the first case the gaze attacks could probably be overlooked becuase it's a "let'em shine" moment and shouldn't be anything else...
In the second case I'm wondering if the player did something to deserve this, or if the DM may need to be changed out.
|
At high level, even mid level, it is far more deadly to have to roll for a lot of low saves than it is to have to roll for one save with a high DC, because of the rule that nat 1s always fail.The larger problem, of course, is that "Save Or Die Instantly" is a badly flawed game mechanic, especially when dealing with high-level characters.
Again, this is a matter of taste. Some of us old school guys don't like nerf bats. Some younger players like more story based games where characters rarely die. And vice versa.
"Save Or Die" being a "badly flawed game mechanic" isn't axiomatic. It is a statement of a preferred playing style.
|
|
Again, this is a matter of taste. Some of us old school guys don't like nerf bats. Some younger players like more story based games where characters rarely die. And vice versa.
"Save Or Die" being a "badly flawed game mechanic" isn't axiomatic. It is a statement of a preferred playing style.
Just for the record, I started playing "Basic D&D" in 1979 (the B1 box) and AD&D 1E original printing in 1981. And it's because of my 1E experiences that I don't like "save or die" effects -- like having my high-level fighter drop dead from a high-level magic-user shapechanging into a nekkid nymph.
|
|
Now that's funny...
Yeah, I had players drop dead at high levels in AD&D from all kinds of spells/critters/poisons, etc.
But, hey, I like rolling up characters, so whatever.
I just really hate this trend towards the "Dragonlanceification" or "World of Darkness-ing" of the game. I like my Gygaxian naturalism. I like my simulationist leanings. I don't want to play in some DMs half-a**ed novel. I like whatever story comes up to grow organically, not according to some plan. When I'm 15th level, I want to feel like I survived, not that I ran a gauntlet of nerf bats.
If I know my character has little chance of dying if I do everything "right", because the guy or gal running the game thinks that random death is "unfair", dude, I'm bored to tears.
But that's just me, so take it for what it's worth: 2cp...
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
As Drago said in Vrocky IV... "If he dies, he dies."
Yes there are time when you might eventually roll a nat 1 and kick the bucket. It happens. However that is a case of bad luck in most instances. Heroes are not invulnerable, nor should they be. If you don't like it in your game don't design encounters where it happens (or don't use the Massive Damage rule).
--You gotta lose your mind in Detroit Vrock City!
If you remove autofailures on a 1, you'll have characters that are "invincible" to certain effects. I'd rather not have my PC's holding staring competitions with the medusas simply because they're high level. I like that, no matter what, you're character's aren't indestructable in D'n'D. I like knowing that if my character's are high level, they're there because I played him/her well, not because he/she is immune to half the special effects most monsters have.
I'm no fan of the 1 always fails rule. It's not bringing up a problem in moderate numbers of uses. It adds tension. But having to roll for massive damage every attack (!) in higher levels just bugs me. And the Pixie-Sleep-Arrow-Machine-Bow with high damage output adds two (!) saves per hit. Ok it's realistic. But it's 8 save rolls per round caused by only one character...
conclusion:
Kick out death from Massive Damage. All 3.5 groups I was in ignored this rule. It just becomes too usual in mid-levels.
1 always looses? It's a nice thing for tension issues but crappy in save-or-die situations. Skip it for effects that kill you or bring you into the helpless state.
If you remove autofailures on a 1, you'll have characters that are "invincible" to certain effects. I'd rather not have my PC's holding staring competitions with the medusas simply because they're high level. I like that, no matter what, you're character's aren't indestructable in D'n'D. I like knowing that if my character's are high level, they're there because I played him/her well, not because he/she is immune to half the special effects most monsters have.
That's a real problem with removing the auto-failure mechanic. PCs can humbly walk through crushing effects without any buff-spells or fear because they know they can't be hurt.
The same is true of opponents to the PCs. The Monk villains that hunt down my casters on the sidelines of battle would suddenly become immune to casters, because their saves are so high they can ignore any effect the wizard puts out. It's no fun for players to fight creatures that can't hurt them or creatures they can't hurt.
Besides all that, I haven't seen a compelling argument as to why swarm tactics aren't appropriate. 16 Bodaks for a 16th level party? That's balanced, and will give players pause more than a single dragon might. 16 kobolds for a 4th level party make a great threat because there are so many of them. We don't pull them out because some of those kobolds can score critical hits.
Ever played high-level DnD? 50+ Damage is common. Fighters don't get in the Massive Damage situation very often due to the half max HP cap for massive damage. But poor sorcerers. They shouldn't go in melee but they find themselves there quite often. The BBEG does this amount of Damage. And wouldn't be the BBEG (or his right hand man) if he didn't hit the nova-blaster first. Don't get me started on spells like harm.
But Massive Dammage is sufficiently discussed in another thread.
The real problem is the 1 looses rule. It's ok when used seldomly. But poisoned arrows are a real problem. AC increases much slower than attack bonus does. Hits become more common. 16th level fighter/rogue: 5/4 attacks are usual. 4/3 attacks hit normally. After 3 rounds theres a circa 50% chance of beeing affected by a poisoned arrow. Way too much, I think.
The same is true of opponents to the PCs. The Monk villains that hunt down my casters on the sidelines of battle would suddenly become immune to casters, because their saves are so high they can ignore any effect the wizard puts out. It's no fun for players to fight creatures that can't hurt them or creatures they can't hurt.
I'm not exactly sure what monk villains that you are running that have save bonuses high enough for that. Even the things I see with very awesome saves still fail on a 2 or so in my games to save against most of creatures impressive abilities.
The real problem is the 1 looses rule. It's ok when used seldomly. But poisoned arrows are a real problem. AC increases much slower than attack bonus does. Hits become more common. 16th level fighter/rogue: 5/4 attacks are usual. 4/3 attacks hit normally. After 3 rounds theres a circa 50% chance of beeing affected by a poisoned arrow. Way too much, I think.
But not too much by my estimation. After seeing someone hit with 9 poison arrows, I'm thinking it's about time that poison actually did something.
Let me try to get us back on track here.
First I'll say, that it is not the occasional rolling of a 1 with the result of death that I mind. What I mind is that with tons of rolling, those 1s actually come up pretty often.
Any archer can coat all of his arrows with drow KO poison at high level. Also quite a legitamate option with any throwing weapon. It's a DC 13 save, but is unconsiousness on a failure. High level archers can get 6-7 attacks a round easily, and might get another hit in with multishot after that. Each hit forces another save, So if 5 attacks hit, roughly a 25% chance of instantly knocking out your target with every full attack.
We have a house rule, if you save vs. any effect three times, you are immune for the rest of the day. This prevents the sorts of problems you are seeing, while still allowing the danger of a auto fail on a natural 1.
I like the idea of a threshold, but it can be some micro management. But any effect is too wide an area. Make the threshold number equaling 3 or your Con-bonus and apply it to helpless making/death bringing attacks and we got a nice optional rule.
Ever played high-level DnD? 50+ Damage is common. Fighters don't get in the Massive Damage situation very often due to the half max HP cap for massive damage. But poor sorcerers. They shouldn't go in melee but they find themselves there quite often. The BBEG does this amount of Damage. And wouldn't be the BBEG (or his right hand man) if he didn't hit the nova-blaster first. Don't get me started on spells like harm.
But Massive Dammage is sufficiently discussed in another thread.The real problem is the 1 looses rule. It's ok when used seldomly. But poisoned arrows are a real problem. AC increases much slower than attack bonus does. Hits become more common. 16th level fighter/rogue: 5/4 attacks are usual. 4/3 attacks hit normally. After 3 rounds theres a circa 50% chance of beeing affected by a poisoned arrow. Way too much, I think.
I don't see whats wrong with this. When folk used poison RL it was deadly, but if you look over posions in both standard 3.5 and PFRPG you might notice that only the most expensive poisons stand a chance of actually killing someone.
I like that you always suffer the risk, since it means you won't have characters automamtically immune to somthing which by all means is already far weaker than it really should be.
Not just poison, remove the auto-fail rule and you'll suddenly having adventurers staring down basilisks and setting off explosions point-blank since that handy evasion ability will mean no damage.
... and setting off explosions point-blank since that handy evasion ability will mean no damage.
That already happens, I don't think the auto-fail rule is going to change that.
Maybe it's really just a problem with poison rules. Now they're unbalanced, because poisons are way too cheap. Ok they are quite ineffective, but the 1 looses rule makes a high DC unnecessary when you have many attacks.
Ok, let's increase the price. But which poison you choose: The DC 20 one for 20.000GM or the DC 15 one for 15.000? When your opponents start to have sufficient Fortitude saves to fail only on the roll of 1 I take the DC 1 alcohol dip for 1000...
Higher levels exclude this option.
Solution: don't give poison to PC's/NPC's with character classes, make it a monster only thing. Than the 1 looses rule is ok.