Although the PRPG has done a great deal to reduce the "swingy" nature of high-level encounters by changing the way that "Save-Or-Die" spells work,
the most broken spells in the game seem to have gone untouched - those belonging to the Enchantment/Charm school. Spells like Charm Person and Dominate Monster not only allow you to instantly take an opponent out of combat like a traditional "Save-Or-Die" spell, but they also allow you to deploy them against your remaining opponents. This not only allows PCs with Enchanters to burn through otherwise challenging encounters with relative ease, but it cause an enormous amount of frustration for players when they encounter enemies that deploy the same tactics against them.
I believe that creatures that are under the influence of these kinds of mind-affecting Enchantment effects should be granted a new saving throw against the effect on their turn for every round that they are engaged in combat. Furthermore, I believe that these creatures should receive a cumulative +1 bonus to their save against the effect for every round that they are engaged in combat. Finally, I believe that the Mind Fog spell should be removed from the game altogether. I believe that these changes will go a long way towards balancing Enchantment/Charm spells that allow you to control opponents in combat against other combat spells while allowing Enchanters and Bards to use Charm Person and Dominate Person to great effect in non-combat situations.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I think you're giving the charm spells more power than they really have. A charm spell makes the target treat you (the caster) as a friend. It doesn't make them stop being friends or allies with their existing friends, nor does it make them friends with the rest of the party.
You need to win an opposed Charisma check to make it do something it wouldn't ordinarily, and if you or one of your allies threaten it in any way, the spell is broken. In addition, if you or your allies currently threaten it, it gets a +5 to it's saving throw.
Generally, I run a charmed creature as caught in the middle between it's original friends and it's new, magical charm buddy. Because of this, it either switches to attacking the caster's allies, or if the caster wins an opposed charisma check, then it will switch to magical abilities or grappling to stop the caster's allies from hurting it's other freinds.
Overall, with all of the limitations, this spell is pretty balanced in my opinion. Your points certainly do apply to the higher level dominate family of spells. While it's powerful, it does allow a victim to make additional saves at +2 if forced to do something against it's nature - such as trying to kill it's friends, giving away valuable magic items, etc. Finally, a simple 1st level spell (protection from evil or other alignments) blocks this.
You need to win an opposed Charisma check to make it do something it wouldn't ordinarily, and if you or one of your allies threaten it in any way, the spell is broken. In addition, if you or your allies currently threaten it, it gets a +5 to it's saving throw.
Generally, I run a charmed creature as caught in the middle between it's original friends and it's new, magical charm buddy. Because of this, it either switches to attacking the caster's allies, or if the caster wins an opposed charisma check, then it will switch to magical abilities or grappling to stop the caster's allies from hurting it's other friends.
The way the rules are currently written, the subject of a Charm spell gets a +5 bonus on its saving throw if it is being threatened by the caster or its allies. But once the save is failed, the spell is still active so long as neither you or your allies are directly attacking the Charmed character. So Team Monster can Charm the party's Fighter and then take a round to make the opposed CHA check to try and convince it to fight on their side. Even if that attempt fails (which it probably won't - Fighters aren't known for their high CHA scores), the Charmed character is still either going to be taken out of the combat (because they will try to unsuccessfully use Diplomacy to get their friends to stop fighting) or they will be much less effective then usual (attacking minions instead of attacking the spellcasting monster, which is the greatest threat to the party). But you usually end up with the party's Fighter wading into combat against his own allies. Mind Flayers in particular are notorious for using this tactic quite successfully to decimate parties.
Overall, with all of the limitations, this spell is pretty balanced in my opinion. Your points certainly do apply to the higher level dominate family of spells. While it's powerful, it does allow a victim to make additional saves at +2 if forced to do something against it's nature - such as trying to kill it's friends, giving away valuable magic items, etc.
Dominate Person is actually worse then Charm Person in terms of setting players against each other because if they pass the second saving throw against the spell, you lose all control over the creature. Charm Person is much greater for causing chaos within a combat situation. However, Dominate Person is great for getting people out of combat by having them take actions that are counter-productive (like having them drink a potion once per round every round) yet aren't "against their nature". So your character sits there round after round doing something stupid like eating all of their iron rations until Team Monster slaughters the rest of the party and then turns on you. Much better then Hold Person!
Finally, a simple 1st level spell (protection from evil or other alignments) blocks this.
You're assuming that every party will have this spell on hand and that Team Monster won't make it a top priority to to Silence or burn down any caster can that looks like they might be able to shut down their Charms and Dominates.
|
I guess I should agree. Anything that challenges PCs should be removed from the game. All PCs should resist every spell cast against them, and should never be put in a situation that causes any difficulty or challenges what-so-ever.
In fact Bad Guys should not even get spells or weapons to use against PCs.
It is never any fun to run into a challenge that requires players to actually think their way to victory. It is better that players are always guaranteed an automatic victory no matter what they do.
Just like taking out save vs die, there should be absolutely nothing at all in the game that is unpredictable, or deadly at all to players.
In fact I think traps and even maps in general should be removed. All spells should be available to fist level casters and only work for PCs.
Lets take all challenge out of the game please.
<snarky, sarcastic whining>
I don't think asking to implement balance to the way certain kinds of spells mechanically work is an unreasonable request. I'm not asking that these spells be removed from the game entirely - I'm simply requesting that they be brought into line with other spells that take players (and monsters) out of combat such as Hold Person/Monster. A round by round saving throw with increasing cumulative bonuses seems like the best way to introduce an element of balance to a set of spells that can create a very "swingy" high-level encounter situation - just like the Save Or Die spells used to.
|
I believe that creatures that are under the influence of these kinds of mind-affecting Enchantment effects should be granted a new saving throw against the effect on their turn for every round that they are engaged in combat. Furthermore, I believe that these creatures should receive a cumulative +1 bonus to their save against the effect for every round that they are engaged in combat. Finally, I believe that the Mind Fog spell should be removed from the game altogether. I believe that these changes will go a long way towards balancing Enchantment/Charm spells that allow you to control opponents in combat against other combat spells while allowing Enchanters and Bards to use Charm Person and Dominate Person to great effect in non-combat situations.
In my opinion all effects that "remove" any character from action for any period (paralysis, sleep, charm, domination, petrification, etc.) should work similar to 4E's "Save Ends"-mechanic, i.e. you get a new saving throw every round to negate the effect. Or, alternatively, a "condition track" similar to 4E's disease mechanics might work as well (Staggered - Dazed - Charmed, every save improves or worsens the condition).
In the case of Enchantment spells, the Will save DCs are high enough that most fighters or barbarians or monsters would probably stay Charmed several rounds anyway. Out-of-combat use of Enchantment spells might have a "real" duration as well.
I remember in Final Fantasy Tactics on the old Playstation, Charm lasted three rounds or until you took damage, which automatically negated the charm. While charmed, you became an enemy and attacked your friends. Your friends would try to negate the charm by hitting you with the least amount of damage possible. It was obvious when someone was charmed because a little heart-shaped status indicator floated over the character's head.
Switching sides is a lot simpler to adjudicate than emotional tug-of-war with Charisma checks and skill checks. I guess it depends on how much of a role-playing element you like (during combat anyway). I do expect a charmed enemy to attack its fellow enemies if it sees them threatening the caster who cast the charm.
It makes sense to me that combat would give a charmed enemy chances to "snap out of it". I think it's more tactically interesting if you don't know when the enemy you charmed might break free of the enchantment. I prefer to interpret charm effects as being a little stronger than what JoelF847 described, then balance that by allowing multiple chances in combat to end the effect. I think I like the OP's suggestion, but without the cumulative +1 to the save. Instead, every time that the GM has reason to apply a +2 circumstance bonus to the save, it applies cumulatively to all future saves against that effect until the caster has uninterrupted time to do some "charm maintenance".
While I like the idea of some effects allowing chances to reenter combat, I do think there's also a need for stronger effects that reliably take you out of combat unless an ally intervenes to remove the effect (i.e. no repeat saves). Both kinds of effects make tactics interesting in their own way.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Finally, a simple 1st level spell (protection from evil or other alignments) blocks this.You're assuming that every party will have this spell on hand and that Team Monster won't make it a top priority to to Silence or burn down any caster can that looks like they might be able to shut down their Charms and Dominates.
Considering it's on both the wizard and cleric spell list and is a 1st level spell (i.e. 25 gp for a scroll of it to have on hand for just this occasion), it's not an unreasonable assumption to make for the game. Just like the game assume that most parties have spellcasting period.
Assuming that a party won't have access to it, and then assuming that a party will never be able to use it because the monsters will shut them down is far more unreasonable. It's like saying, "sure they could deal with it, but as a DM I'm going to make sure they won't". If the monsters can stop every member of the party from doing anything, at will, then yes, you're correct, there is no effective counter to charms and dominate effects.
Finally, a simple 1st level spell (protection from evil or other alignments) blocks this.
Agreed, both the Charm and Compulsion subschools are pretty much useless for a DM to use, since any party worth their salt will have access to either protection from evil/good/law/chaos and/or magic circle against evil/good/law/chaos. Sure, those spells only suppresses the effect, but it will in any case be suppressed until the end of the encounter. I would personally like to see Charm/Compulsion subschools get a boost by limiting the suppression effect of PfX and MCaX to caster level or lower.
In a high level encounter I ran, one PC used three summon monster spells to blanket the field with lantern archons just to limit charm/dominate on the party for a few rounds. The archons died quickly, but the magic circle they radiate prevented mental control on the other PCs long enough to take out the enemy spellcaster.
Consider the wording in the spell text: "Any act by you or your apparant allies that threatens the charmed person break the spell".
Seeing as the rest of the party is still enemies of the charmed creature, and is properbly killing the charmed persons friends, I think it is quite easy to interpret this as a threat, which breaks the spell.
I'm not sure that I myself would use such a strict interpretation, but doesn't seem that far fetched considering the wording of the spell.
Admitted, this might not help PCs fighting a spellcaster without any minions (which might be threatening), but the player-on-player action could indeed be what made this encounter something special. If not, well then you, as a GM, should just not use the gamebreaking effects...
I agree that Charm Person isn't as bad as you're making it out to be; it makes a person "friendly" (i.e. like a friend, but not like your best friend), it shouldn't make them your slave. If you had two groups of friends fighting, what would you do? Maybe you'd try to break up the fight, but you wouldn't necessarily kill your allies to do it.
The only thing I don't like about Charm Person is the "opposed Charisma check" to give the subject orders. I'd just strike that line out completely.
The only thing I don't like about Charm Person is the "opposed Charisma check" to give the subject orders. I'd just strike that line out completely.
Friendly is a mechanically specific term, tied to the Diplomacy skill. It is the level of attitude directly below Helpful.
Initial Attitude New Attitude (DC to achieve)
Hostile Unfriendly Indifferent Friendly Helpful
Hostile Less than 20 20 25 35 50
Unfriendly Less than 5 5 15 25 40
Indifferent — Less than 1 1 15 30
Friendly — — Less than 1 1 20
Helpful — — — Less than 1 1
Attitude Means Possible Actions
Hostile Will take risks to hurt you Attack, interfere, berate, flee
Unfriendly Wishes you ill Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult
Indifferent Doesn’t much care Socially expected interaction
Friendly Wishes you well Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate
Helpful Will take risks to help you Protect, back up, heal, aid
So, charm simply makes the character Friendly, per the SRD.
Stretching limited help too far is grounds for a re-save, and dropping the charisma check mechanic to command will just put it right back into the realm of the diplomacy skill, DC20 to make the charmed indivdual do what you would like them to in any meaningful way. This is also why turning charm into, say a +40 Diplomacy roll is not my preferred patch, as that will autosucceed in pushing Hostile to Helpful with a Take 10.
I think that the power level of the Enchantment spells is fine. I do, however, wish that the language were tightened up to make it more clear what the spells can and cannot do. Usually, players at my table just ended up using other spells instead to avoid arguing with the DM about what should and shouldn't happen.
I think that the power level of the Enchantment spells is fine. I do, however, wish that the language were tightened up to make it more clear what the spells can and cannot do. Usually, players at my table just ended up using other spells instead to avoid arguing with the DM about what should and shouldn't happen.
Have you read the section in the glossary? It clears up quite a bit of that confusion.
I have. I just don't want to spend 10 minutes debating what is "against <a monster's> nature."
|
|
Finally, a simple 1st level spell (protection from evil or other alignments) blocks this.You're assuming that every party will have this spell on hand and that Team Monster won't make it a top priority to to Silence or burn down any caster can that looks like they might be able to shut down their Charms and Dominates.Considering it's on both the wizard and cleric spell list and is a 1st level spell (i.e. 25 gp for a scroll of it to have on hand for just this occasion), it's not an unreasonable assumption to make for the game. Just like the game assume that most parties have spellcasting period.
Assuming that a party won't have access to it, and then assuming that a party will never be able to use it because the monsters will shut them down is far more unreasonable. It's like saying, "sure they could deal with it, but as a DM I'm going to make sure they won't". If the monsters can stop every member of the party from doing anything, at will, then yes, you're correct, there is no effective counter to charms and dominate effects.
To play the devil's advocate, and to underline my point above: I don't see why less experienced players should be "penalized" for not knowing that either or these (or, actually, a number of spells) are "must-have-as-spells-or-potions-or-scrolls". As I wrote above, I don't think new players -- or players choosing to memorize, say, 'Magic Missile' and 'Mage Armor' or 'Bless' and 'Magic Weapon' -- should be "punished" for not preparing for *every* eventuality (i.e. "reasonable assumption"). There are already a lot of effects that are very unforgiving in 3E, and if this sort of stuff will be increased in PF, I really, *REALLY*, want that official "Shopping Lists by Level" table that I can refer my players to ("Ok, guys, now that you're at 7th level, you should buy five 'Death Ward'-scrolls, four 'Align Weapon'-scrolls, seven scrolls of 'Freedom of Movement'...") -- you know, sort of "this is the stuff you'll buy or we won't play".
We already almost had a TPK with two *Ghasts* (a "flavour" encounter that the PCs should have breezed through), when half of the PCs (ironically, both melee types with high Fort saves, to boot) were out of the action for several minutes and only *one* PC didn't get the penalties from 'Stench'. That made me think about how "swingy" the combats can be, if one or two PCs fail a *single* saving throw (and both had almost a guaranteed success, but rolled badly). Besides, since the players knew that it wasn't a "real" challenge yet, they didn't waste any "buffs" or protective spells at the point.
And just for the record: my playtest campaign didn't have a spellcaster until two sessions ago a cleric joined the party (still no arcane spellcaster, though). And since he's "melee-oriented", he's not going to be able to create scrolls or potions (they can buy them, but only in a limited fashion, since the town doesn't have any spellcasters above 7th level). To repeat: if it's another "must" that the game rules will automatically "assume", maybe it can be "hardwired" into the rules that an NPC cleric and wizard "cohort" will be provided to any party (free of charge) not including them as PCs?
In that case, I think it is your responsibility to avoid (or just house rule of the face of the earth) these effects.
I really don't think nerfing spells which have a rather limited usefulness in combat is the way to go. It would remove the possibilities to do much for the lower spellcasting classes.
It is quite true, that somethings can be devastating to an encounter, especially featuring Saving throws against all players. But removing these effects will i my opinion be more hurtful than beneficial.
It sounds like your group is entirely combat oriented characters. Fine, then you might have no need for spellcaster abilities. But others do, so they really shouldn't be removed from the game.
On whether or not, the players should be punished for not having prepared for the right situation, I don't think it is a matter of punishment. Perhaps the challange lies in something other than the creature having X HP, AC, AB and Dam. This might let the characters learn something, and prepare differently for the next adventure.
As a GM, I think you have all the tools in the world to avoid killing (too many) characters. Anything other happening to them? I say fine.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
I'm with Krome on this one. Sometimes the game is swingy and you have bad die rolls and sometimes PC's die. It happens.
I had both our primary spellcasters, a cleric and sorcerer go down at 20th level to a save or die that they just rolled badly on. A few of the others panicked at first, but they pulled through the encounter and got their fallen comrades resurrected.
If the game doesn't include something you feel is necessary then institute it at your table. Not everyone finds the same problems or plays in the same style.
--Detroit Vrock City!
The Enchantment school is actually my least favorite group of spells. They have an extremely dual nature of being either game breaking or useless and are more dependant on the enemy having bad will saves than anything else. They're all or nothing pretty much across the board. And they're the only school where a huge majority of its spells are that way.
|
|
The Enchantment school is actually my least favorite group of spells. They have an extremely dual nature of being either game breaking or useless and are more dependant on the enemy having bad will saves than anything else. They're all or nothing pretty much across the board. And they're the only school where a huge majority of its spells are that way.
I think there are "problematic" spells in almost every school, but I have to agree that Enchantment is the "worst". Also, I feel it's as you said: a cunning player may easily abuse them to no end (especially out of combat), yet on the other hand, their usefulness is largely dependant on the target's Will save. Either no effect at all, or something that may end the encounter right there -- potentially even ruin the whole adventure, or cause the DM a serious headache.
|
|
In that case, I think it is your responsibility to avoid (or just house rule of the face of the earth) these effects.
I really don't think nerfing spells which have a rather limited usefulness in combat is the way to go. It would remove the possibilities to do much for the lower spellcasting classes.It is quite true, that somethings can be devastating to an encounter, especially featuring Saving throws against all players. But removing these effects will i my opinion be more hurtful than beneficial.
It sounds like your group is entirely combat oriented characters. Fine, then you might have no need for spellcaster abilities. But others do, so they really shouldn't be removed from the game.On whether or not, the players should be punished for not having prepared for the right situation, I don't think it is a matter of punishment. Perhaps the challange lies in something other than the creature having X HP, AC, AB and Dam. This might let the characters learn something, and prepare differently for the next adventure.
As a GM, I think you have all the tools in the world to avoid killing (too many) characters. Anything other happening to them? I say fine.
There are a lot of elements in the rules that add to the "swinginess" -- 'save-or-die'-effects (and effects that remove your character from the encounter), party formation (e.g. no spellcasters to remove any effects), your initiative (*especially* at higher levels -- I can't even count the times my PC died on round one before even getting to act), terrible balance between DCs and saving throws, etcetera etcetera. The trouble is, where 4E has managed (I'll give them this, at least) to downplay the "swinginess" and enable all sorts of parties to overcome most encounters, each encounter in 3E/PF is perhaps too dependant on the party's resources and abilities. Sometimes the "challenge" is too easy, while other times you cannot overcome it, no matter what you tried.
For example: a single 15th level wizard is a CR 13 challenge, but pit him against a party of "non-spellcasters" or multiclassed spellcasters, and it may be an impossible fight for the PCs. Dimension Door, Flight, Wall of Force, Repulsion, Stoneskin... for such a party, it feels like an Epic encounter that is not fair or possible to win.
Yes, the classes in my playtest group are suited for a very combat-centric campaign, but if I used, say, a flying wizard or a bard or even a simple mid-level vampire against them, it would most likely be a TPK (note: except for the cleric, they all have barely positive Will saves, because they used WIS as their dump stat). Of course, if they won initiative, it might be a whole different story -- which sort of proves how "swingy" the combat is.
'Save-or-die'-effects feel fun, if your player has access to them, but when a wizard keeps lobbying them from behind a Prismatic Sphere or Repulsion-spell, it may not feel as fun anymore (I've experienced it, and the only option was to flee from the whole adventure, and leave him to destroy the world, or whatever it was he wanted).
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
The Enchantment school is actually my least favorite group of spells. They have an extremely dual nature of being either game breaking or useless and are more dependant on the enemy having bad will saves than anything else. They're all or nothing pretty much across the board. And they're the only school where a huge majority of its spells are that way.I think there are "problematic" spells in almost every school, but I have to agree that Enchantment is the "worst". Also, I feel it's as you said: a cunning player may easily abuse them to no end (especially out of combat), yet on the other hand, their usefulness is largely dependant on the target's Will save. Either no effect at all, or something that may end the encounter right there -- potentially even ruin the whole adventure, or cause the DM a serious headache.
That's why you have to tailor adventures to your Players. You don't have to give every enemy a defense against their abilities, but once in a while a foe should be able to thwart their SOG's. If you have a player that abuses enchantment it should eventually become known and knowledgable foes will act accordingly.
So, charm simply makes the character Friendly, per the SRD.
Stretching limited help too far is grounds for a re-save, and dropping the charisma check mechanic to command will just put it right back into the realm of the diplomacy skill, DC20 to make the charmed indivdual do what you would like them to in any meaningful way.
I agree the "CHA check" should be dropped. Diplomacy exists, it shouldn't be reinvented.
The spell puts them in "Friendly" category, meaning if you want to spend a round using Diplomacy on them to convince them to do something, the rules already allow for that.That still seems like a useful spell, it just doesn't try to do an end-run around the existing rules (Diplomacy).
I think I would like the power to be dropped on many of the enchantment spells, so that they don't cause instantaneous side switching or there being more ability to break the enchantment during that battle. Additionally I would like to remove the spells that grant immunity to the enchantments.
That way you don't have to expect the PCs to have the protection from ... spells ready to stop immediate control (which I often find comes too close to metagaming for my taste), and enchantments would work without being blocked by a 1st level spell making them more useful overall.
Considering it's on both the wizard and cleric spell list and is a 1st level spell (i.e. 25 gp for a scroll of it to have on hand for just this occasion), it's not an unreasonable assumption to make for the game. Just like the game assume that most parties have spellcasting period.
What if the primary spellcaster of the party is a Druid? Or no one in the party is really interested in playing a spellcaster? And doesn't it seem like Protection from Evil is pretty much just a band-aid for a school of magic that needs a mechanics overhaul?
|
|
Considering it's on both the wizard and cleric spell list and is a 1st level spell (i.e. 25 gp for a scroll of it to have on hand for just this occasion), it's not an unreasonable assumption to make for the game. Just like the game assume that most parties have spellcasting period.What if the primary spellcaster of the party is a Druid? Or no one in the party is really interested in playing a spellcaster? And doesn't it seem like Protection from Evil is pretty much just a band-aid for a school of magic that needs a mechanics overhaul?
That's my point, too. Even though my group has a cleric, he's a priest of the War God and likes to take part in melee and memorize "buffs" only. We've already had discussions of certain "assumptions" the game makes, and he's not comfortable with the cleric's role as a "support", i.e. to always memorize spells that can save party members from different kinds of situations (i.e. Remove Paralysis, Dispel Magic, Remove Blindness, Prot. from Evil, etc.). Also, he doesn't like that he's supposed to "hang back" and keep channeling and "buffing" party members -- he does that, occasionally, but it's a bit contradictory to his deity's dogma and the character's very nature. Still, he *has* access to those spells, if all goes badly.
However, in another group I play in, Druid is the primary spellcaster, and he does *not* have access to certain spells that the party simply "must use" in certain situations. In that campaign sessions usually drag on with very little happening, as we lack resources to overcome the "challenges" (and spend the time role-playing and feverishly discussing what we should do). Fortunately the DM lets us get away with a bit of creativity, because running those (Dungeon) adventures by the rules would result in TPKs or us walking away in the middle of most of them.
IMO the rules should not make any assumptions about the resources or members of the party -- if they do, it would be fair to have in "black-and-white" in the first pages.
|
|
Here's a radical idea. How about you stop using purchased adventures that aren't tailor made for playing style. Or, better yet, play with a GM who will put in the work to adjust said adventures to accommodate your playing style, party make-up, etc., rather than push for rules rewrites that effect the way everyone else will have to play. The writers of adventures you purchase can in no way account for the enormous diversity of playing styles, but you know who can? Your GM/group. Write your own adventures. Problem solved.
Here's a radical idea. How about you stop using purchased adventures that aren't tailor made for playing style. Or, better yet, play with a GM who will put in the work to adjust said adventures to accommodate your playing style, party make-up, etc., rather than push for rules rewrites that effect the way everyone else will have to play. The writers of adventures you purchase can in no way account for the enormous diversity of playing styles, but you know who can? Your GM/group. Write your own adventures. Problem solved.
So never using enchantment spells solves the problem of not having a caster with protection from evil. That seems less like solving the problem and more like just avoiding the problem.
|
|
So never using enchantment spells solves the problem of not having a caster with protection from evil. That seems less like solving the problem and more like just avoiding the problem.
My post is somewhat out of context as it is a response to a number of threads, not just this one, and somewhat directed at a specific poster (who I'm sure knows who I mean).
Just for the record, I am absolutely not advocating that we "never use enchantment spells". Quite the contrary.
I AM advocating that (and I have posted this in other threads as well) you cannot use arguments based on "what if my party does not have X to counter Y" as a valid reason to nerf an entire class of spells.
That is what I was trying to get across.
If you really want to see where I (and others) are coming from check out my post history to better understand the context.
Sorry for any confusion.
|
|
So never using enchantment spells solves the problem of not having a caster with protection from evil. That seems less like solving the problem and more like just avoiding the problem.
My post is somewhat out of context as it is a response to a number of threads, not just this one, and somewhat directed at a specific poster (who I'm sure knows who I mean).
Just for the record, I am absolutely not advocating that we "never use enchantment spells". Quite the contrary.
I AM advocating that (and I have posted this in other threads as well) you cannot use arguments based on "what if my party does not have X to counter Y" as a valid reason to nerf an entire class of spells.
That is what I was trying to get across.
If you really want to see where I (and others) are coming from check out my post history to better understand the context.
Sorry for any confusion.
You *can* use such arguments, if it means that unless you have class X and Y in your party, spells from school Z may prove to be impossible to overcome. To me it says that there's a design flaw in the system, if classes X and Y are a *must* in every party.
I very rarely use published adventures myself, and so far haven't use any in my Beta playtest campaign. However, in many campaigns I have played in, the DM has been just too busy to write his own material, so they've mostly used Dungeon modules. Usually they've adjusted the adventures to better suit the party (some of them more and some of them less -- as much as time has permitted), but isn't that kind of funny? As noted above, if the basic premise of the game is that you cannot run adventures (of the appropriate level) without serious "tailoring" -- i.e. modifications to which traps, NPCs, spells, monsters, etc. are used in the adventure to avoid "impossible" situations or TPKs -- something isn't right. Yes, every published adventure usually needs some "tailoring" and rewriting to suit your overall campaign plot and environment, but that's a completely different thing (and some Dms do not even bother with it).
Besides, if these arguments can be based on actual playtest data and years of experience from several posters, doesn't it tell that this particular school actually most likely *needs* "nerfing"? Players and DMs and playing/DMing styles are different from each other, but saying that ignoring or houseruling something which seems (again, based on my experience with a lot of different types of DMs and players) to be "broken" (i.e. easily abused by "merciless" DMs or "powergamers") is silly. As I've said on several threads, a lot of high-level spells still need "tweaking", but in my opinion the whole Enchantment school needs reworking -- your melee types have only a marginal chance to save against such effects, some of which may have long-lasting consequences. For example, a simple 'Confusion'-spell may effectively result in a TPK, if employed against the PCs (in most cases only a cleric, druid or paladin has a reasonable chance at making the save).
|
|
Here's a radical idea. How about you stop using purchased adventures that aren't tailor made for playing style. Or, better yet, play with a GM who will put in the work to adjust said adventures to accommodate your playing style, party make-up, etc., rather than push for rules rewrites that effect the way everyone else will have to play. The writers of adventures you purchase can in no way account for the enormous diversity of playing styles, but you know who can? Your GM/group. Write your own adventures. Problem solved.
And if the players don't have the time to do that or cant find someone who does have the time? Should they just give up gaming?
I never play Charm Person targets as willing assailing their own friends. I would not allow any sort of roll to convince someone to attack their own friend, just as I wouldn't allow it if there was no magic involved.
Charm makes the target believe the caster is his friend. It doesn't invalidate existing feelings for allies who may or may not also be friends. The best my players ever get is that one monster starts trying to "break up" the fight, and if the caster plays it passively the charmed target might start attacking the aggressor with subdual damage.
Problem solved, for one spell, anyway.
|
|
And if the players don't have the time to do that or cant find someone who does have the time? Should they just give up gaming?Here's a radical idea. How about you stop using purchased adventures that aren't tailor made for playing style. Or, better yet, play with a GM who will put in the work to adjust said adventures to accommodate your playing style, party make-up, etc., rather than push for rules rewrites that effect the way everyone else will have to play. The writers of adventures you purchase can in no way account for the enormous diversity of playing styles, but you know who can? Your GM/group. Write your own adventures. Problem solved.
Why should the rules be changed for everyone because of a few lazy GMs?
I AM advocating that (and I have posted this in other threads as well) you cannot use arguments based on "what if my party does not have X to counter Y" as a valid reason to nerf an entire class of spells.
That is what I was trying to get across.
Alright, but I might advocate that one should not use arguments based on "Y is perfectly fine because X counters it" to not change any of those spells.
I probably would like to see the enchantment spells nerfed so that they don't require the presence other spells that grant immunity to them, as well as the spells that grant immunity being nerfed so that they don't grant immunity.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Why do you constantly think that PC's HAVE to have a defense against something? If you players fall victim to enchantment spells early in their career and fail to take steps to protect themselves from such spells and abilities in the future then it falls squarely on them and not the game.
You can either use the Protection with X spells to suppress the effects, you can boost your will saves through resistance bonuses or other spells, or even use things like silence to stop the language dependant spells from working. There are lots of ways to counter a given school of magic and not all of them are required to adventure. Sometimes you just rely on luck.
--The King of Vrock!
|
|
Why should the rules be changed for everyone because of a few lazy GMs?And if the players don't have the time to do that or cant find someone who does have the time? Should they just give up gaming?Here's a radical idea. How about you stop using purchased adventures that aren't tailor made for playing style. Or, better yet, play with a GM who will put in the work to adjust said adventures to accommodate your playing style, party make-up, etc., rather than push for rules rewrites that effect the way everyone else will have to play. The writers of adventures you purchase can in no way account for the enormous diversity of playing styles, but you know who can? Your GM/group. Write your own adventures. Problem solved.
So your answer to an honest problem is to accuse someone of being lazy? So if someone works a 40+ week and honestly don't have the energy to do something like this they are lazy?
|
|
I never play Charm Person targets as willing assailing their own friends. I would not allow any sort of roll to convince someone to attack their own friend, just as I wouldn't allow it if there was no magic involved.
Charm makes the target believe the caster is his friend. It doesn't invalidate existing feelings for allies who may or may not also be friends. The best my players ever get is that one monster starts trying to "break up" the fight, and if the caster plays it passively the charmed target might start attacking the aggressor with subdual damage.
Problem solved, for one spell, anyway.
Exactly. The premise of many of the posters above is based on their interpretation of Charm spells (and the like), which I don't believe to be accurate.
By all means, we should clear up the confusion regarding the wording of many spells, rules etc. before going hog hog on an entire class of spells.
|
|
Why do you constantly think that PC's HAVE to have a defense against something? If you players fall victim to enchantment spells early in their career and fail to take steps to protect themselves from such spells and abilities in the future then it falls squarely on them and not the game.
You can either use the Protection with X spells to suppress the effects, you can boost your will saves through resistance bonuses or other spells, or even use things like silence to stop the language dependant spells from working. There are lots of ways to counter a given school of magic and not all of them are required to adventure. Sometimes you just rely on luck.
--The King of Vrock!
Bravo!
|
|
To be clear, I have not accused anyone in particular of being lazy.
So your answer to an honest problem is to accuse someone of being lazy? So if someone works a 40+ week and honestly don't have the energy to do something like this they are lazy?
And to be clear that's exactly what I'm getting at many people really Don't have the time to make up there own things hence the point of published modules in the first place.
Why do you constantly think that PC's HAVE to have a defense against something? If you players fall victim to enchantment spells early in their career and fail to take steps to protect themselves from such spells and abilities in the future then it falls squarely on them and not the game.
You can either use the Protection with X spells to suppress the effects, you can boost your will saves through resistance bonuses or other spells, or even use things like silence to stop the language dependant spells from working. There are lots of ways to counter a given school of magic and not all of them are required to adventure. Sometimes you just rely on luck.
--The King of Vrock!
Problem is, from what I've seen. If the group does do half the stuff on that list and still fail, and then I post the results on this forum, there will be a number of posters that will continuously cry out that it was there own fault for dying for not casting protection from evil! They could have boosted their saves, cast silence on themselves, and still easily fail against a dominate person, then there will be posters up in arms that this party didn't deserve to live because they didn't cast a spell that would have rendered them immune.
|
|
I never play Charm Person targets as willing assailing their own friends. I would not allow any sort of roll to convince someone to attack their own friend, just as I wouldn't allow it if there was no magic involved.
Charm makes the target believe the caster is his friend. It doesn't invalidate existing feelings for allies who may or may not also be friends. The best my players ever get is that one monster starts trying to "break up" the fight, and if the caster plays it passively the charmed target might start attacking the aggressor with subdual damage.
Problem solved, for one spell, anyway.
How about 'Confusion' or 'Dominate'-spells? Use the latter on the party's best "tank", and it eliminates two PCs from the combat (and probably leads to one of them dying).
It would help a *lot* if there were some kind of re-rolls in the rules (without having to burn two feats to get, say, a single re-roll for one saving throw per day) *or* saving throw progression would be balanced to DCs. As it stands, very few PCs, even at high levels, can handle Will Save DCs beyond 20+ (for example: my 18th level fighter has +10 Will Save Modifier, and he has Wis 14 and 'Iron Will').
|
|
Problem is, from what I've seen. If the group does do half the stuff on that list and still fail, and then I post the results on this forum, there will be a number of posters that will continuously cry out that it was there own fault for dying for not casting protection from evil! They could have boosted their saves, cast silence on themselves, and still easily fail against a dominate person, then there will be posters up in arms that this party didn't deserve to live because they didn't cast a spell that would have rendered them immune.Why do you constantly think that PC's HAVE to have a defense against something? If you players fall victim to enchantment spells early in their career and fail to take steps to protect themselves from such spells and abilities in the future then it falls squarely on them and not the game.
You can either use the Protection with X spells to suppress the effects, you can boost your will saves through resistance bonuses or other spells, or even use things like silence to stop the language dependant spells from working. There are lots of ways to counter a given school of magic and not all of them are required to adventure. Sometimes you just rely on luck.
--The King of Vrock!
Or didn't buy the magic item X and Z which everyone *MUST* have at 5th level or preferably even at level 3, or the cleric's/wizard's player was stupid and played his character "wrong" and needs to be educated about the rules and "must" spells to memorize, or the DM should have rewritten the whole adventure, or...
Yeah, I know what you mean.
|
|
And to be clear that's exactly what I'm getting at many people really Don't have the time to make up there own things hence the point of published modules in the first place.To be clear, I have not accused anyone in particular of being lazy.
So your answer to an honest problem is to accuse someone of being lazy? So if someone works a 40+ week and honestly don't have the energy to do something like this they are lazy?
If your players are totally at the mercy of a particular tactic/strategy then either the players should recognize this and make attempts to "fix" their situation or your GM should make changes to keep the fun going.
It doesn't take a major rewrite to cast a few less enchantments your party's way during the course of an adventure. Sub in a few AOE and your done.
This is not my approach however but if prep time is a factor...
|
|
Why do you constantly think that PC's HAVE to have a defense against something? If you players fall victim to enchantment spells early in their career and fail to take steps to protect themselves from such spells and abilities in the future then it falls squarely on them and not the game.
You can either use the Protection with X spells to suppress the effects, you can boost your will saves through resistance bonuses or other spells, or even use things like silence to stop the language dependant spells from working. There are lots of ways to counter a given school of magic and not all of them are required to adventure. Sometimes you just rely on luck.
--The King of Vrock!
Long live the meta-gaming, right? So it's a game of tactics, in which your primary goal is to bolster your strengths to the extreme, and strive to eliminate any potential weaknesses you have -- even though your character (such as a barbarian or a low-INT fighter) would have *no* information about such spells/potions/items? I thought one of the design goals was to lessen the effects of "min-maxing", not encourage or embrace it?
Problem is, from what I've seen. If the group does do half the stuff on that list and still fail, and then I post the results on this forum, there will be a number of posters that will continuously cry out that it was there own fault for dying for not casting protection from evil! They could have boosted their saves, cast silence on themselves, and still easily fail against a dominate person, then there will be posters up in arms that this party didn't deserve to live because they didn't cast a spell that would have rendered them immune.
Or didn't buy the magic item X and Z which everyone *MUST* have at 5th level or preferably even at level 3, or the cleric's/wizard's player was stupid and played his character "wrong" and needs to be educated about the rules and "must" spells to memorize, or the DM should have rewritten the whole adventure, or...
This is why the splatbooks for 3.5 were largely how-to guides for playing the class. I agree that this sort of sucks about 3.5, but if you fix it thoroughly, you get 4th Edition. They made it a lot harder for players to make critical errors, and in doing so reduced the number of options available.
In 3.5, you have the freedom to make mistakes, for better or worse. That's what allows some to play more efficiently than others. When set against an arbitrary challenge, those who know the game better can do better, and for some people that's the point. Make the wrong choice and it sucks. Without that, it's all up to the dice!
That said, I agree that some effort should be made to soften the worst cases of this. I am a big advocate of re-writing the magic chapter - not changing the system, but clarifying the importance of the staples that newbies tend to overlook. This is way overdue, and could make a huge difference. Similarly, the rules really should set the expectation of players when it comes to "necessary" equipment or the like. Basically, if we're going to leave meaningful decisions in the hands of the players, the rules text should give them the info needed to make the right call in a user-friendly way.
PS - Can we tone down the aggression somewhat? I'm interested in this conversation and would hate to see it squashed.
|
|
And to be clear that's exactly what I'm getting at many people really Don't have the time to make up there own things hence the point of published modules in the first place.To be clear, I have not accused anyone in particular of being lazy.
So your answer to an honest problem is to accuse someone of being lazy? So if someone works a 40+ week and honestly don't have the energy to do something like this they are lazy?
If your players are totally at the mercy of a particular tactic/strategy then either the players should recognize this and make attempts to "fix" their situation or your GM should make changes to keep the fun going.
It doesn't take a major rewrite to cast a few less enchantments your party's way during the course of an adventure. Sub in a few AOE and your done.
This is not my approach however but if prep time is a factor...
The trouble with this is, as I wrote above, that it enforces metagaming thinking over role-playing, and I often find it disruptive. Besides, not all DMs let you go shopping for scrolls/potions/magic items, and even if they did, you probably just cannot prepare for every eventuality. Therefore, it's a poor "patch" for what I call a design flaw in the rules -- either you're nigh-immune to something via wearing or buying (or casting) a spell/item, *or* you're really, really vulnerable to it.
Yeah, you *can* succeed at hitting AC 100+ or saving against DC 50+ with a natural 20, but consider this: is the system in balance, if your 18th level heroic PC constantly faces "challenges" in which he cannot survive unless he rolls 15+?
Yeah, you *can* succeed at hitting AC 100+ or saving against DC 50+ with a natural 20, but consider this: is the system in balance, if your 18th level heroic PC constantly faces "challenges" in which he cannot survive unless he rolls 15+?
My understanding of "game balance" in an RPG context is that it is not adversarial. The designers strive for balance between party members so that each player has equal time in the spotlight and nobody totally dominates every encounter. It's actually something D&D has done right 90% of the time, compared to most other systems.
Some people construe the word "balance" as meaning that the numbers balance out between PCs and Monsters. Challenge ratings and such are actually a /very/ new concept in RPGs, and their execution leaves much to be desired. Even so, this isn't a balance issue, IMO.
To address your comment directly, yes, 18th level PCs should constantly face challenges that succeed only a fraction of the time, that drain his copious resources. He should also face challenges that fail only a fraction of the time, those that can seriously harm or kill him. Without this, the game will grow very boring.