Whereas previously death effects meant instant death on saving throw failure before, now they merely do straight hit point damage - this makes them effectively evocation spells in all but name and simply adding more normal damage spells is well... boring. I understand the balance reasons why this was done, but there must be other solutions to the problem.
Indeed, there was an excellent thread on this matter back during the Alpha 3 playtest stage. It can be found here: Link
The near-consensus of the thread was that death effects should do Constitution drain or damage. Much of the rest of the thread was discussion about how much Constitution drain/damage they should cause and there were several viable proposals. One of my proposals was for:
3d6 + 1/2 Caster level Constitution Drain on a failed save
(Note: possibly it could also do 3d6 +1/2 Caster level hit point damage on a successful save)
There was also some discussion about whether to apply the same logic to other save or die and save or suck spells that are not strictly speaking death effects. These would drain other ability scores and reach full effect once the ability score reached 0. So, for example, Petrification would drain Dexterity (perhaps also to the tune of 3d6 +1/2 Caster level) on a failed save and the creature would turn to stone upon reaching 0 Dexterity. There was no consensus on this part though.
I really dislike the ordinary hit point damage caused by death effects, so the above system would work great for me. Alternatively, though, we could simply revert back to the 3.5E way of doing things and temper them with an additional rule. Save or die and perhaps even save or suck spells could have a hit point limit and the creature would have to have fewer hit points than this limit to be affected. That would mean that a powerful dragon would first have to be brought down to say 200hp (or whatever the limit would be), before it could be affected by the spell and thus couldn't be off'ed in the first round due to an unlucky save making the final battle very anticlimatic.
Thoughts?
|
The basic concept of having Death effects do Constitution damage rather than hit point damage is a good one, but may have some strange side-effects.
I think that 3d6 + 1/2 Caster level Constitution Drain on a failed save may be a bit too steep for the Save or Die spells though. Or perhaps that might be retained, and the victim takes no damage on a successful save...
More effects doing Con damage, forcing to recalculate opponent's HP = worse game. As if high level play wasn't complicated enough. Death effects should cause, well, instant death. If you don't like this, get some protection. Also, DnD has probably cheapest resurrection ever, so I have nothing good to say about the players who believe that instant death is a big deal at levels, where really good death effects become available.
The basic concept of having Death effects do Constitution damage rather than hit point damage is a good one, but may have some strange side-effects.
I think that 3d6 + 1/2 Caster level Constitution Drain on a failed save may be a bit too steep for the Save or Die spells though. Or perhaps that might be retained, and the victim takes no damage on a successful save...
Well, death effects ought to be deadly... and this is still less deadly than it was in 3.5E, where they led to automatic death.
More effects doing Con damage, forcing to recalculate opponent's HP = worse game. As if high level play wasn't complicated enough.
This is a fair point that hasn't been brought up before. I don't think it is very difficult - just remove a number of hit points equal to level times half the constitution lost from both the maximum and existing hit points (unless the Con drain is enough to kill the target outright - in that case no further calculations are needed), but I can see how some people might see it that way. Although for me this is not too much of an issue, I agree that this is a reasonable point that must be taken into account when making a decision on the nature of death effects and other save or die/suck effects.
Death effects should cause, well, instant death. If you don't like this, get some protection. Also, DnD has probably cheapest resurrection ever, so I have nothing good to say about the players who believe that instant death is a big deal at levels, where really good death effects become available.
I don't actually have a huge problem (I do have a slight problem) with death effects as they were in 3.5E, particularly if the autofail on a natural 1 is removed for saving throws, as I have done in my games. Many people, however, do not like instant death effects on a failed saving throw.
The thing is that death might not be a big deal at higher levels in D&D, but many people feel it should be a big deal and would like to make resurrection more difficult, but turn down lethality of instant death effects to compensate.
In any case, what do you think about my other idea of hit point thresholds determining whether a creature is affected by save or die/save or suck spells and otherwise leaving them as they were in 3.5E?
Additionally, most people would rather just have the character die than suffer Con drain, or so 4th ed says statistically.
This is mystifying to me - after all Con damage heals naturally and even Con drain can be 'cured'.
Hit points thresholds, unless so high as to be meaningless or allowing to kill without save (and for this we have Power Words) defeat the whole point of SoDs, which is to avoid grinding through a huge sack of HPs. Of course, at high levels you must first remove enemy's defences against death effects, if the enemy is any good.
The near-consensus of the thread was that death effects should do Constitution drain or damage.
I like your proposal, it's reasonable yet effective, and infinitely more elegant than the vulgar pew-pew current Finger of Death was reduced to. =)
...which means, it's not gonna happen. =(
|
|
The near-consensus of the thread was that death effects should do Constitution drain or damage.I like your proposal, it's reasonable yet effective, and infinitely more elegant than the vulgar pew-pew current Finger of Death was reduced to. =)
...which means, it's not gonna happen. =(
The thing is that it's a rather *cruel* solution -- that's permanent drain, and requires high-level spells to deal with. If your party does not include a high-level Paladin or Cleric, the PCs will pack up and head to the closest town. Even if it does, it depends on whether the divine spellcasters have memorized the needed spells to restore that drain (or have them on a scroll) -- if not, they're packing up to rest in a safe place. Sure, after being hit by such spells the PCs probably take necessary precautions, but it's a rather "forced" affliction on them. Also, note that ability damage and drain (caused by monster abilities, poisons and diseases) have been downplayed in PF Beta a lot (and for a good reason), so I cannot fathom why this would suddenly change.
In my opinion there's nothing elegant in something that essentially forces the PCs to quit adventuring and returning to rest -- they'll be penalized, unless they know the rules well enough to *always* prepare "just in case we're hit with a Death-spell"
I also like it. Hit point damage does belong to Evocation.
I like ability damage. PC's need to be attacked from all sides to keep them on their toes!
Some player's may find changing hit point totals troublesome but it's hardly difficult.
It's a good compromise to 3.5's utter death [which I didn't actually dislike].
In my opinion there's nothing elegant in something that essentially forces the PCs to quit adventuring and returning to rest -- they'll be penalized, unless they know the rules well enough to *always* prepare "just in case we're hit with a Death-spell"
I kinda hear you, but really, any party around the level where death spells appear that isn't already prepared for ability damage/drain from other means [poison, disease, incorporeal undead etc.] is a party heading for the morgue.
|
|
I also like it. Hit point damage does belong to Evocation.
I like ability damage. PC's need to be attacked from all sides to keep them on their toes!
Some player's may find changing hit point totals troublesome but it's hardly difficult.
It's a good compromise to 3.5's utter death [which I didn't actually dislike].
It's better than death, but only marginally so for a group that is not prepared for Death-spells. For example, if the group's fighter lost, say, 18 points from CON, do you think they would press on?
The same often happened in our 3E campaign with Ability Score loss or Negative Levels -- more than 2 points or levels, and the whole group retreated to rest or back to the nearest town (unless the cleric had bothered to memorize those spells, but often he only took "buffs" and Dispel Magic, and the DM wasn't exactly handing out scrolls for us or letting us buy them).
Excessive drain on the characters' abilities results in either:
1) The adventure becoming much more challenging for the PCs -- often even deadly, if they choose to push on.
2) Withdrawing from the dungeon -- even if there is a "deadline" or "imminent threat" situation.
3) Restoring the damage via spells, items or scrolls. Haven't seen often happening in my group.
Players are *very* sensitive about their characters (and their characters' items, too), and if there's a chance that some of the ability score loss or level drain would become permanent, they want to do something about it (i.e. it often becomes a priority, even at the cost of failing the adventure goal). Yes, it may more "realistic", but it can be stressful (both to the DM and the players) and disruptive and not very fun.
|
It can be difficult if it keeps happening. Especially at higher levels when there are already going to be a lot of numbers changing round by round.
I'm in favor of not changing Save or dies. As a player I like them to much, though they rarely actually work when needed. I've also been on the receaving end just as much, and there is only one time that just really irritated me. But this was a unique case that does not really work in reverse (players using it against monsters and NPC's). The Party was either 4th or 5th level. I was an Aasimar Cleric, and the first round of combat a Wizard cast Sickening Clout (I think). I had just the right amount of Hit Dice that I died. No Save. No option to do anything to give me a chance. It was very irritating, not because I died, but because in that singular encounter, no option or choice or chance on my part could have changed the encounter for me in any way.
However, I still like Save or Die spells over all.
|
|
In my opinion there's nothing elegant in something that essentially forces the PCs to quit adventuring and returning to rest -- they'll be penalized, unless they know the rules well enough to *always* prepare "just in case we're hit with a Death-spell"I kinda hear you, but really, any party around the level where death spells appear that isn't already prepared for ability damage/drain from other means [poison, disease, incorporeal undead etc.] is a party heading for the morgue.
As I wrote above, some DMs don't actually hand out a lot of items that would help you in such a situation -- and often such DMs don't let you go shopping for them, either. You could scribe them, but if your party does not include a cleric, you're screwed. Naturally, DMs should be sensitive of what resources PCs have at their disposal, and consider each monster/trap/spell/NPC the adventure includes -- what if they stumble to this trap? What if the Wraith drains someone to death? And so on.
I'm kind of reminded of a CR 3 "boss" monster in my Alpha playtest campaign -- as I wrote the adventure, I had failed to spot that this Undead creature had DR 15/+1 (using 3.0 stats), and none of the PCs could actually inflict more than 2 or 3 points per strike, if they got lucky (i.e. none of them had a magical weapon or access to 'Magic Weapon'-spell). It could also drain their DEX scores, so after a few rounds they just withdrew to town, and rested to full HPs and DEX scores.
This was actually my fault, *BUT*, at the same time my veteran players had failed to consider that perhaps a crypt dedicated to a deity of pure evil might contain several undead creatures -- some of which *could* have DR (although they probably thought something like 5/+1, i.e. 5/Magic). A party containing an elven fighter/wizard or a cleric might have breezed through that encounter. So, in the end, it came down to my error and their thought that I would not include creatures with DR in the first adventure (I normally don't, so they were correct). On the other hand, their characters (especially the paladin) were aware of the fact that there might be something more vile and dangerous lurking there, but the player believed that I wouldn't be "unfair" to them. I was too excited and made a mistake, and they chose not to prepare as well as they could have (for example, by asking one of their mentors to "bless" their weapons, just in case). Needless to say, the campaign almost ended there.
|
|
As I wrote above, some DMs don't actually hand out a lot of items that would help you in such a situation -- and often such DMs don't let you go shopping for them, either. You could scribe them, but if your party does not include a cleric, you're screwed. Naturally, DMs should be sensitive of what resources PCs have at their disposal, and consider each monster/trap/spell/NPC the adventure includes -- what if they stumble to this trap? What if the Wraith drains someone to death? And so on.
There is a very old, time honor tradition that 3.0 has managed to do a very good job of making people forget about with their "heroic" systmes . . .
It happenes a lot in Fantasy literature and old school games.
It's called running away.
Seriously, if they are not handing out or allowing you to purchase such items, than it is probably because they want a more "magical" game where gear is rarer. It would be no different than throwing a first level party against the Tarrasque from a mile away. They don't have to fight it, but if they do, they will probably not do so well.
|
|
As I wrote above, some DMs don't actually hand out a lot of items that would help you in such a situation -- and often such DMs don't let you go shopping for them, either. You could scribe them, but if your party does not include a cleric, you're screwed. Naturally, DMs should be sensitive of what resources PCs have at their disposal, and consider each monster/trap/spell/NPC the adventure includes -- what if they stumble to this trap? What if the Wraith drains someone to death? And so on.There is a very old, time honor tradition that 3.0 has managed to do a very good job of making people forget about with their "heroic" systmes . . .
It happenes a lot in Fantasy literature and old school games.
It's called running away.
Seriously, if they are not handing out or allowing you to purchase such items, than it is probably because they want a more "magical" game where gear is rarer. It would be no different than throwing a first level party against the Tarrasque from a mile away. They don't have to fight it, but if they do, they will probably not do so well.
That's true, yet I don't remember a lot of PCs doing it. Also, it often puts pressure on the DM -- if the PCs flee from a crucial encounter for an extensive rest, at higher levels this usually means that any sort of "deadline" they're supposed to meet (i.e. to prevent the villain's plans) must be postponed. Other times it's just annoying for the DM, as he has to think about which sort of precautions the villain takes next time (i.e. which traps are reset, which minions animated, which sort of monsters summoned, etc.).
I think a system similar to 4E's "damage-plus-condition" (i.e. continous damage and/or some sort of condition which is removed with a successful save) is a more elegant and fair solution -- even at the cost of "realism".
Hm... well PC deaths are going to happen. It's part of that realism thing. Also as a PC I want to know if I fling death at something it's not just going to be "severely hampered" I want it dead.
While it's not always fun to have dead PCs that is part of what happens. Death does eat into resources some, but that's accounted (or supposed to be) along with everything else wealth wise. Some resources get eaten up and replaced by others along the way. If we are going to swaddle the players and tell them the heroes never die, and so forth what are we doing with dice? We already know the outcome.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you run, sometimes you die.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'm not sure I'm sold on con loss for death effects or not. However, when considering it, you could make lower level death effects do Con damage (like phantasmal killer and slay living), and then higher level death effects do con drain (6th level spells and up).
As for making it too hard to deal with the con loss, even ability drain only needs a 4th level spell to counter, and that's available at the same point as the lowest level death effects.
The thing is that it's a rather *cruel* solution -- that's permanent drain, and requires high-level spells to deal with.
Would it be less cruel if the drain wasn't permanent and was healed over the course of days like any other ability damage effect? Actually I thought that was the case (until I remembered the difference betwen 'damage' and 'drain'... damn sleep deprivation).
While I certainly understand how wrecking can instant-death effects be on a character you have played long enough to love, high level magic is supposed to be deadly, something to feared, not the vulgar pew-pew it is currently.
|
|
The thing is that it's a rather *cruel* solution -- that's permanent drain, and requires high-level spells to deal with.Would it be less cruel if the drain wasn't permanent and was healed over the course of days like any other ability damage effect? Actually I thought that was the case (until I remembered the difference betwen 'damage' and 'drain'... damn sleep deprivation).
While I certainly understand how wrecking can instant-death effects be on a character you have played long enough to love, high level magic is supposed to be deadly, something to feared, not the vulgar pew-pew it is currently.
Less cruel, perhaps, but it's still a harsh penalty -- plus it might result in insta-death anyway, if you hit, say, a rogue with it. I'm not arguing that high-level magic shouldn't be dangerous, but having also been on the "receiving" end (as a player) in many long-running, high-level campaigns I don't see a lot of spells being fun or fair. I think there are a few spells and "insta-effects" that need "tweaking" -- even at the expense of "realism" or "fear of death".
Let's say your character is hit by a Maximized Energy Drain... do you keep pushing on, even though you were just handed 8 negative levels? Or, if you are slapped with 14+ CON damage... do you feel confident enough that you'll survive the rest of the adventure? From a practical point of view, these kind of grind the adventure to a halt, as PCs are scrambling to rest, heal, and re-memorize certain spells to protect from such effects. I hate that -- both as player and DM. Especially if that was the first encounter of the day.
EDIT: These effects already existed in AD&D, but it was easier to save against them, so even a fighter might have something like a 40% chance to survive a lethal spell. Now, if the villain has maxed-out his save DCs, your +7 Ref or Will modifier won't matter, because you need a natural 20 to succeed.
I'm kind of reminded of a CR 3 "boss" monster in my Alpha playtest campaign -- as I wrote the adventure, I had failed to spot that this Undead creature had DR 15/+1 (using 3.0 stats), and none of the PCs could actually inflict more than 2 or 3 points per strike, if they got lucky (i.e. none of them had a magical weapon or access to 'Magic Weapon'-spell). It could also drain their DEX scores, so after a few rounds they just withdrew to town, and rested to full HPs and DEX scores.
This was actually my fault, *BUT*, at the same time my veteran players had failed to consider that perhaps a crypt dedicated to a deity of pure evil might contain several undead creatures -- some of which *could* have DR (although they probably thought something like 5/+1, i.e. 5/Magic). A party containing an elven fighter/wizard or a cleric might have breezed through that encounter. So, in the end, it came down to my error and their thought that I would not include creatures with DR in the first...
I know a DM that likes to use the Monster Manual of Death! [3.0 version]
PF is an expansion of 3.5 so you shouldn't really use the 3.0 MM as DR's changed alot in 3.5!
Hm... well PC deaths are going to happen. It's part of that realism thing. Also as a PC I want to know if I fling death at something it's not just going to be "severely hampered" I want it dead.
While it's not always fun to have dead PCs that is part of what happens. Death does eat into resources some, but that's accounted (or supposed to be) along with everything else wealth wise. Some resources get eaten up and replaced by others along the way. If we are going to swaddle the players and tell them the heroes never die, and so forth what are we doing with dice? We already know the outcome.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you run, sometimes you die.
Quite right, well put, and have a cookie :)
As A side note, this is the 4th time tonight that this has happened to me. It keeps on not submitting my post, automatically logging me off, and returning me to the Home Page when I try to post. Anyone else?
No, but I always highlight my entire post and right-click-copy before I hit the "Submit Post" button...because it has happened to me too many times in the past!
*snip*
Let's say your character is hit by a Maximized Energy Drain... do you keep pushing on, even though you were just handed 8 negative levels? Or, if you are slapped with 14+ CON damage... do you feel confident enough that you'll survive the rest of the adventure? *snip*
What you do is get the Cleric to cast the appropriate Restoration spell on you. Either the one he has prepared [if you're lucky] or one of the ones you spent some of your gold on before you left the last town.
Now, if your DM doesn't let you buy those resources then your DM isn't playing fair by hitting you with that kind of stuff, however if you don't have one because your armour/weapon just got up-graded then you deserve to die, imo, for being so short-sighted!
Preparation is everything.
While I certainly understand how wrecking can instant-death effects be on a character you have played long enough to love, high level magic is supposed to be deadly, something to feared, not the vulgar pew-pew it is currently.
I agree--when you get down to it, this 4e-ish approach is an understandable take on the problem, but I feel like it takes away the flavor of the system. As one of my players playing 4e put it: "Whoopdee do, I leveled up. I get the same spell with higher damage!"
Furthermore, in any campaign I've run, SoDs have had the singular effect of inspiring a response you just can't get from anything else. Once you've seen a beholder once (or make a knowledge check, for that matter) you do what any self-respecting adventurer does--run like h*ll, clean yourself up, and prepare appropriately.
As an aside, once your party is high enough that significant SoD effects are common, I would expect them to begin carrying appropriate remedies...at least after one or two encounters or near-encounters. It's part of the game.
Finally, given that death no longer causes true and permanent level loss, I'd argue that these effects make MORE sense to leave in--you're no longer potentially unbalancing one poor guy for the rest of his career with a Finger of Death...you're just teaching him a sense of caution. ;-)
I personally am a big fan of having save or die effects in the game. (The change to magic is the main reason I am going to PFRPG) While I understand that for some people it is a dealbreaker for them. What I would like to see is a chart just like the slow/normal/fast XP chart. You can have three columns of lethality and options at each row.
The rows can be major headings or conditions such as Sleep, Held, Petrify, Level Drain, and Death Effect. Feel free to add others if you think of them, but that is a start. Then in each column you could have the effect that would result.
Example - Sleep could be -
Asleep for the duration of the effect or spell
Asleep but allowed a save every round
Lost action for one round then slowed for duration.
Example 2 - Death Effect could be -
Save or Die
Save or at 0 hit points and dying
Save or take xDx damage based upon spell level
Example 3 - Level Drain could be -
Lose the level no save. Must restore magically.
Lose the level with a save in 24 hours
Save or lose the level. Rest returns one level per day/week based upon level or HD of effect.
This would work for everything from Vorpal Swords and Slay Living to Rogue Death Attacks and a Medusa's gaze with a little enervation and vampire touch thrown in.
It sets the expectation with all players at the start of the game just like level advancement and can help players make the characters that they like based upon the survivability.
Let’s face it, who wants to play a Necromancer without Finger of Death and who wants to play a barbarian that cannot froth at the mouth while lopping off the heads of giants with his vorpal greataxe! Similarly who wants to play a heavy RP game with slow advancement when they have to roll up a new character every week right?
|
|
This is a phenominal idea. I really would love it they did this, and went more in depth.
One of the larger gripes one of my groups has always had is that we like to play super powered games, (one game everyone started with all 18 preracial ability scores, and got to pick one to be 22). Unfortionatly, there is almost no material to help out with the inbalance issue that the classes start seeing.
I'm suggesting this as a partial compromise -- take it for what it's worth. What if, instead of death being the result of a failed save, a failed save dropped the target to one hit point away from death (either -9 or one hit point more than their negative Con score)? This way, there would be one round in which party members would have a chance to stabilize the character, but if no such aid was applied, the character would die on the next round.
CR
|
|
*snip*
Let's say your character is hit by a Maximized Energy Drain... do you keep pushing on, even though you were just handed 8 negative levels? Or, if you are slapped with 14+ CON damage... do you feel confident enough that you'll survive the rest of the adventure? *snip*What you do is get the Cleric to cast the appropriate Restoration spell on you. Either the one he has prepared [if you're lucky] or one of the ones you spent some of your gold on before you left the last town.
Now, if your DM doesn't let you buy those resources then your DM isn't playing fair by hitting you with that kind of stuff, however if you don't have one because your armour/weapon just got up-graded then you deserve to die, imo, for being so short-sighted!
Preparation is everything.
What if you don't *have* a cleric in the party? When that Maximized Energy Drain hit my high-level fighter, we had a paladin but no cleric, and we were caught in a "planar island" (so no getting to the clsoest town). We rested, and I hoped for the best, but even so two of the negative levels "stuck", making the adventure a lot harder for the whole party (I lost one attack and two points from BAB). I've played in a lot of 3E sessions in which we had character deaths because we lacked certain "buffs" (i.e. no spellcasters) and, as a result of this, even the fighters needed to roll 15+ with every attack.
I like to think of this way: preparation and clever ideas/tactics should reward the player -- *not* be a "norm" or "baseline assumption" in the rules that essentially only allows you to "offset"/remove the penalties. If you lack the knowledge or experience or your DM isn't letting you go on a "shopping spree", you'll be penalized, which is silly.
For example, I've played in a lot of 3E sessions in which we had character deaths because we lacked certain "buffs" (i.e. no spellcasters) and even the fighters needed to roll 15+ with every attack. In some cases we lacked the means to punch through certain creatures' DR (unless you have the 'Golf Bag of Weapons' or a spellcaster dedicated to take several 'Align Weapon'-spells -- we had neither) and a CR 10 monster became a "game stopper" for 15th level PCs. And so on.
If my players do not have access to "buffs" (as spells) or potions or scrolls -- whether for roleplaying reasons (some PCs have not, for example, accepted 'Magic Tattoo'-spells because they considered them to be "vulgar" or "demeaning") or because they lack the funds -- I try to "tweak" the encounters so that they won't need 17 or 18 to hit every monster. If the rules make "buffs" and magical items (especially weapons and protective itens) more or less obligatory via calculating them directly into monster stats and DCs, there should be an official table that provides you with a list of spells and items as "countermeasures" to every potential "penalty" you'll face at each level.
So, if by "prepared" the rules actually mean something like, say, "every fighter needs to have 'Bull's Strength', 'Bear's Endurance' and a +3 weapon by 9th level in every encounter, or he's not done his homework and prepared, in which case the player needs to be reminded of the rules (see Table 29-1, 'Shopping Lists by Level')".
[sarcasm] And why don't we just suggest that in the PF rules every party *MUST* include a cleric -- if none of the PCs is a cleric, and NPC cleric (of equal level) is always provided as a semi-independent cohort? [/sarcasm]
My main point is that if the game constantly "penalizes" you for not "maxing out" your characters or preparing for every potential danger with a backpack full of scrolls and potions, it's not very fun, isn't it? Rather, it's an excercise in tactics and "min-maxing", and this is already painfully evident in 3E, which is why I run it (and PF) with a more "loose" and "fair" attitude, trying to find some sort of compromises in situations in which I know the adventure will grind to a halt (i.e. including such items in the adventure or removing such effects from the adventure). That doesn't mean that I remove all elements of danger, or save the PCs if they plunge headlong towards disaster -- I only try to give them a fair "fighting chance", especially if there's a good reason why they are not prepared.
So your party doesn't have a cleric so what?
Our party doesn't have one either and we've made it just fine without one. It consists of 1 barbarian (poor made by a new player) 1 druid (average) 1 wizard (very well made) my wizard (very well played but poorly built... I took spell mastery twice on purpose for crying out loud), a sorcerer/Arcane trickster, and a sorc/barb/EK. Most of the time I handle the healing with summons and wands (if the druid dies I'm prepared for reincarnate with limited wish).
You don't have a cleric you should prepare for what can happen if you don't have one. Not preparing by making sure to have the nessecary supplies isn't bad game design, it's stupid playing.
My opinion on SoD's and SoS's is that these are part of the challenge of the game. Sometimes you won't overcome them, just like sometimes superman loses. If the players can't handle that then they need to go back to the video games.
(I am not accusing anyone here of not being able to handle these things in a mature fashion. Every person I've seen in this thread seems to be capable mature role players who understand the basics of D&D. I think it is unreasonable to have everything magic nerfed down simply becuase it can have "bad results"... of course it can have bad results that's the point of the spell! Just like combat.)
I like to think of this way: preparation and clever ideas/tactics should reward the player -- *not* be a "norm" or "baseline assumption" in the rules that essentially only allows you to "offset"/remove the penalties.
Well said (even though I'm still laughing from Fizzlebolt's post).
I think I like the idea of Con damage rather than Con drain. It still feels more like a death effect and less like just another evocation, but eventually heals, like the damage that the death effects currently do. At least I'd allow another save to avoid permanent drain. Treating petrification as Dex loss until Dex 0 was another neat idea.
Although the fear of Save or Die effects can't be equalled any other way, I'm agreeing with Asgetrion mostly because I almost choked on that bit about the Golf Bag of Weapons :-)
I'm with Spalding, Dogbert and Fizzlebolt on this one - D&D is no fun without fear. You gotta have situations (sliding open the sarcophagus, stepping through the portal, drinking from the cup on the altar) when you face instant annihillation. If you want to die in stages, play 4E.
As for playing without a Cleric - unless you compensate in other ways, you deserve everything you get! Sure the system should be flexible but again, if you want a system where every class is equally valid and none is vital, 4E awaits.
I get the point about great preparation not being a baseline requirement - for your everyday, humdrum stuff that's valid. But every great adventure has encounters that whip your *ss the first time and you learn your lessons and go back for another shot. Or prizes only attainable by the quick-thinking, well-prepared or lucky. The game should both reward smart play and scare the pants off people.
What if you don't *have* a cleric in the party? When that Maximized Energy Drain hit my high-level fighter, we had a paladin but no cleric, and we were caught in a "planar island" (so no getting to the clsoest town). We rested, and I hoped for the best, but even so two of the negative levels "stuck", making the adventure a lot harder for the whole party (I lost one attack and two points from BAB). I've played in a lot of 3E sessions in which we had character deaths because we lacked certain "buffs" (i.e. no spellcasters) and, as a result of this, even the fighters needed to roll 15+ with every attack.
Ok, you make a good point about non-Cleric parties, but we have to accept that the adventures do assume a Cleric is present. If you go adventuring without a Cleric you are, by default, already at a massive disadvantage. In such a party, each PC will have to spend a much higher %-age of his or her gold on self preservation.
As for your example, your DM seems to be using the Monster Manual of Death [3.0], and without access to the proper resources, your party would appear to be in too deep all things considered.
There was no consensus in the other thread about whether the Constitution removal should be damage or drain - there are benefits to both the harsher and the milder effect.
Hit points thresholds, unless so high as to be meaningless or allowing to kill without save (and for this we have Power Words) defeat the whole point of SoDs, which is to avoid grinding through a huge sack of HPs. Of course, at high levels you must first remove enemy's defences against death effects, if the enemy is any good.
Well, the spells would still require a saving throw, but the hit point thresholds could perhaps be higher than for Power Word spells. For lower hit point creatures, SoD spells would still be death effects and so on, for higher hit point creatures, they would function more along the lines of finishing moves, once these are brought down below an appropriate threshold. The same system could work for true Death Effects, as well as for Petrification and other spells that are effectively save or die/suck.
|
|
I'd have to agree with the keep SOD's side. By the levels a character has to be to run into SOD's more often (real SOD's, not simple incapacitation spells like Hold Person/Monster, Sleep and the like) they're generally much better equipped to handle them.
On top of that, I've found in our games that starting about 7th level, with even basic "to save" buffs from the party's Bard/Cleric/Druid, the chance most SOD/Save or Suck spells have of working when used by an equivalent CR creature is actually closer to 50%. Natch, that also means the chance of the mage in the party affecting a given creature in an encounter is about 50%, too. (Discounting SR, which can make it even more difficult.) So about half the time a mage casts a Save or Incapacitate spell, it does nothing more than waste a spell slot. If anything, I'd almost argue for making SOD's more effective, rather than dismissing what makes them both cool and dangerous for yet another blanket-damage or ability drain/dmg spell.
I guess if I had a gun to my head and had to take an alternative, I'd opt for the multisave idea, where Gorgon Breath, for instance, slowed, paralyzed and then petrified, with each missed save. But that still doesn't sit well with me in that it takes a lot of the really immediate and dangerous mythical flavor out: "Oh, no! I heard a banshee! In three rounds (if I don't make my concurrent saves, possibly with the added help from two rounds of buffs cast after the fact) I'll die!"
But that's just me. I like SOD spells; it's just another link to 1st Ed., when the games I played weren't quite so tac-simish.
|
Crazy idea time - instead of a save or die/death effect spell doing CON drain or damage, how about it inflicts a CON penalty? The penalty would effect Fort saves and CON based skills (if any), without causing a hp recalculation. If the penalty exceeds the CON score, then the character dies. The penalty can go away after a certain time period, say 10 minutes. Until it disappears, spells that inflict the same penalty can stack effect.
I drew inspiration for this from everyone's favorite spell, Ray of Enfeeblement, which works similarly, but doesn't allow STR to fall below 0.
Thanks for reading.
|
|
People, you do realize that the Nerf line of toys is a HASBRO product, right? Let's keep Nerfs out of PF, m'kay?
;)
|
|
So your party doesn't have a cleric so what?
Our party doesn't have one either and we've made it just fine without one. It consists of 1 barbarian (poor made by a new player) 1 druid (average) 1 wizard (very well made) my wizard (very well played but poorly built... I took spell mastery twice on purpose for crying out loud), a sorcerer/Arcane trickster, and a sorc/barb/EK. Most of the time I handle the healing with summons and wands (if the druid dies I'm prepared for reincarnate with limited wish).
You don't have a cleric you should prepare for what can happen if you don't have one. Not preparing by making sure to have the nessecary supplies isn't bad game design, it's stupid playing.
You know, I'd like to see a list of these "necessary supplies" and "spells-that-MUST-be-memorized-for-every-session", because, frankly, there's just so many situations and encounters the PCs simply *cannot* prepare for -- unless, of course, all spellcasters will have more slots, or all spellcasters will be nerfed to be able to cast their repertoire spontaneously (e.g. via Spell Points). Or, if the DM hints clearly at what they're going to face.
As for the "stupid playing"... I don't know about you, but my DMing style is story-centric and role-playing heavy, and I actually dislike "extreme" min-maxing (both in NPCs and PCs). Also, I'm not tactically-inclined person, so I usually make a lot of tactical errors -- both as DM and player. Yet I wouldn't still let anyone claim that I'm playing or running the game "wrong" or in a "stupid" way. And if someone had said so to me when I was a novice player, I'd have quit RPGs on the spot. It's meant to be *fun* for *everyone* -- not an excercise in tactical abilities or "winning" the game. If the game makes assumptions about certain items/spells being mandatory PC resources at different levels, and has it "hardwired" into the system (for example, by bumping up the NPC/monster abilities and stats accordingly), then it would be fair to mention it, so that every novice player knows it, too.
IMO a lot of the "swinginess" of combat at both ends of the level spectrum in 3E *is* due to bad game design, or rather, poor playtesting. I like "realism" and internal and mechanical consistency in a game, but a bunch of games achieves the former a lot better than D&D ever could. The fact that a single bad roll may get your 19th level heroic PC killed in an eyeblink may be "realistic", but that is hardly a design goal or intention.
Another sign of bad game design was nerfing the spell durations from 3.0, which has resulted (in most cases) that either the PCs have to have several rounds of "buffing" time before each encounter, *or* the spellcasters keep their fingers crossed that the melee PCs survive for a few rounds while they're fervently spending that time "buffing" everyone (or themselves, as is far too often the case). PF Beta has managed to downplay this a bit, but in my experience in most combats *nobody* has any "required buffs" on during the first round.
My opinion on SoD's and SoS's is that these are part of the challenge of the game. Sometimes you won't overcome them, just like sometimes superman loses. If the players can't handle that then they need to go back to the video games.(I am not accusing anyone here of not being able to handle these things in a mature fashion. Every person I've seen in this thread seems to be capable mature role players who understand the basics of D&D. I think it is unreasonable to have everything magic nerfed down simply becuase it can have "bad results"... of course it can have bad results that's the point of the spell! Just like combat.)
Bad results, yes, but in my opinion there's a profound difference between failing a single saving throw as a result of a bad roll or high DC and dying because you didn't withdraw or seek healing, although you saw it coming two rounds ago. In the latter case, you probably *chose* to try your luck and keep on fighting, in the former case your DM just informed you to roll a saving throw.
But as a player and DM I'm against all "insta-death"-situations, whether it's due to a high-level spell or min-maxed NPCs. I also have plenty of experience from the latter situations, in which a poor Initiative roll may be all that you need to lose your life (although this may very well also happen at lower levels, it's more typical in high-level combat). But the worst thing for me is a villain who has high-level spells or maxed-out combat abilities, because a single full action will almost assuredly kill at least one PC. A lot of people seem to clamor for keeping these effects so that the abilities of their PCs won't be "toned down", even though I doubt that they'd like it if their PC was eliminated from the game during first encounter of the session (happened to me many times -- most often due to bad rolls).
Yet, as the playtests have proved on certain threads, tactically-gifted players may have their spellcasters use a combination of Scry/Blast/Dominate -spells that enable them to "win" through the adventure without even actually being there "in the flesh". As in 3E, this pretty much says to me that the rules still need "polishing", because at the moment they still award powergaming and knowledge/abuse, and penalize those who are not as "savvy" as you "should" be, and/or make mechanical choices mainly for role-playing reasons.
I'd be fine with keeping 'save-or-die'-effects and effects that remove you from the party or the game for a time, *if* you were given at least two or three saving throws, or even a new saving throw per round (in the case of Charm/Domination/Paralysis/etc.).
Again why make this weaker?
It's a high level spell, meaning it should have a big effect. It can't be cast turn after turn after turn after turn, it might not even work.
Beyond that the player agrees to "test their luck" everytime they sit at the table.
Why should they get multiple saves? If I get hit by the fighter in combat do I get multiple tries to avoid the damage?
Death ward is a 4th level cleric spell. You can be protected from these spells before you can even use them.
At this rate I expect to see people arguing that a Medusa should turn you to stone until you fail 5 save throws becuase it's not fair if she can do it on the first try.
Symbol of death is a 8th level spell, so is finger of death (7th for wizard). The first available true SoD is phantasmal killer a fourth level spell with two save throws, that is also mind affecting illusion, giving even more ways to avoid the death it could bring. Cloudkill is already like what you are asking for.
When I see 6th level plus spells that only do something if the target fails I want to see them do it very well. 7~9th level spells are rare and should have spectacular effects.
In all editions these spells have performed their function as they should (when they succeed) I don't see why suddenly we should change that just becuase it's "swingy" and "can insta-kill".
The wizard has been fearing "insta-kill" from one hit from a weapon for how many levels? So what if suddenly a spell can do to someone else what the wizard worries about from day one.
Yes it's a game for enjoyment, but it seems just as insane to me to say "death" spell shouldn't kill someone as it is to say that a fighter lives through re-entry through an atmosphere just becuase he didn't take enough damage to kill him or from some other such activity.
Beyond that the player agrees to "test their luck" everytime they sit at the table.
Precisely. And ultimately the DM decides what threats the players face. Just because it's in the book, doesn't mean you have to use it.
The fact that a single bad roll may get your 19th level heroic PC killed in an eyeblink may be "realistic", but that is hardly a design goal or intention.
I'm not so sure about that. I think that the threat of having one's life snuffed out in an instant is precisely the intention. It's part of the dark background against which the game is played out. To each their own, and maybe I won't agree with myself next time I cough up a fat 1 for my save, but adventure games are more fun when the wire is high off the ground and there's no safety net.
Crazy idea time - instead of a save or die/death effect spell doing CON drain or damage, how about it inflicts a CON penalty? The penalty would effect Fort saves and CON based skills (if any), without causing a hp recalculation. If the penalty exceeds the CON score, then the character dies. The penalty can go away after a certain time period, say 10 minutes. Until it disappears, spells that inflict the same penalty can stack effect.
I drew inspiration for this from everyone's favorite spell, Ray of Enfeeblement, which works similarly, but doesn't allow STR to fall below 0.
Thanks for reading.
The hp recalculation is pretty easy: subtract total character level times change in Con modifier. What is the Con penalty if it does not include loss of hit points? Loss of Fort save bonus doesn't seem like enough for a death effect, since that can only kill you indirectly if something else requires a Fort save.
Con damage can kill you two ways: 0 Con or negative hp. I think that's reasonable for a "death" spell that used to be save-or-die.
Actually, finger of death in the Pathfinder Beta might as well still be save-or-die for many targets of the spell, since it does 10 damage per caster level on a failed save. Since a wizard needs to be 13th level to cast a 7th level spell, the damage is at least 130 hp. Personally, I'd like it to be a little more possible to survive the spell even on a failed save, especially for characters who are not hp tanks. Con damage is still deadly, but more survivable by a character of a class with a lower hit die (d8 or d6).
I think 3d6 + caster level Con drain proposed by the OP is too high. A normal person has 10 or 11 Con, so I think 2d6 gives a good chance to kill a normal person. I'd use 2d6 + 1/2 caster level Con damage, or 1d6 Con damage on a successful save. I think a penalty that lasts only 10 minutes is too weak, so I'd let it heal at the normal rate: 1 point per day. Talismans that reduce Con damage by 1d6 would make interesting and valuable wards against death effects. Similar talismans might reduce Dex damage from petrification effects.
No, seriously, are we playing D&D or Tea Time?
OMG! I might DIE!!! Unfair!!!
I can't tell who you're responding to, but making something survivable isn't the same as removing the possibility of death. That's what a saving throw is after all. Often a saving throw is unrealistic (how do you survive coup de gras?); nevertheless saves make the game more fun. Improving the granularity of save-or-die effects allows more interesting things to happen, and certainly leaves plenty of chance for death.
I'm a believer that GMs should roll dice out in the open whenever possible and never fudge results. I've wiped out entire groups several times, and not because I was trying to. I agree with Asgetrion because I think a game is more fun when there's more than one way to complete it. If the preparation demands are too specific, players are forced to find just the right tactical recipe, when other tactics might suffice when part of a creative strategy, rewarding clever players rather than simply imposing a chore (get everything on the shopping list).
The discussion is about more than just risk preferences. I think the goal of the OP is to restore differentiation and make the spells nerfed in 3.5 more interesting again.
|
|
I like to think of this way: preparation and clever ideas/tactics should reward the player -- *not* be a "norm" or "baseline assumption" in the rules that essentially only allows you to "offset"/remove the penalties.
This type of stuff is what I'm responding to. At the levels where SoD or SoS really come into play, preparation and clever ideas/tactics SHOULD be the norm. Characters aren't fighting ORCS anymore, they're fighting intelligent, powerful critters and NPCs who damned well DO use clever tactics and ideas, and prepare the hell out of their lairs/strongholds/whatever. Expecting high level games to play like low level dungeon crawls?
Eh.
If players are afraid to die, I understand that pinochle has a very low mortality rate...
Edit: And a quick comment on "math is hard". Please.
|
I personally am a big fan of having save or die effects in the game. (The change to magic is the main reason I am going to PFRPG) While I understand that for some people it is a dealbreaker for them. What I would like to see is a chart just like the slow/normal/fast XP chart. You can have three columns of lethality and options at each row.
The rows can be major headings or conditions such as Sleep, Held, Petrify, Level Drain, and Death Effect. Feel free to add others if you think of them, but that is a start. Then in each column you could have the effect that would result.
<snip of some excellent stuff>
I agree completely. I personally like Save or Die spells, both as a player and as a DM - but I do understand those who don't.
The idea you have outlined is like Spycraft 2's campaign qualities - a menu of game modifiers that the GM selects from to tune their campaign.
For our purposes, we select 'Lethal Magic' and Disintegrate becomes a Save or Die. Then we pick 'Revolving Door' and resurrection magic becomes commonplace and we have a traditional DnD game.
On the other hand, pick 'Death of a thousand incants' to make Disintegrate just deal HP damage and 'Ahh, my final rest' to make resurrection expensive and uncommon and you have a completely different style of game.
This does mean that some of the game effects need to be moved out of the spell descriptions and into a table (like the one in your original post) but this could actually make things clearer and reduce page count.
One of my personal hopes for Pathfinder is that we will end up with (at the very least) some sidebars that detail Jasons optional thoughts on such rules to allow game tuning like this.
I like to think of this way: preparation and clever ideas/tactics should reward the player -- *not* be a "norm" or "baseline assumption" in the rules that essentially only allows you to "offset"/remove the penalties.
Actually that was Asgetrion (I quoted him earlier).
This type of stuff is what I'm responding to. At the levels where SoD or SoS really come into play, preparation and clever ideas/tactics SHOULD be the norm. Characters aren't fighting ORCS anymore, they're fighting intelligent, powerful critters and NPCs who damned well DO use clever tactics and ideas, and prepare the hell out of their lairs/strongholds/whatever. Expecting high level games to play like low level dungeon crawls?Eh.
If players are afraid to die, I understand that pinochle has a very low mortality rate...
I never cared for pinochle. Bridge on the other hand, or hearts...