He can either sit there and cry becuase he "can't do anything" without magical equipment "and that's not fair!" or he fines new and different ways of handling problems, or he picks up that magical gear and goes at the problem.
This is a fine remedy if you have magic shops on every corner in your campaign world, but in worlds that do not have a such an abundance of magical items that they have been devalued to a mere trade good, Fighters will be left with the items that they find over the course of their adevntures. Meanwhile, Wizards and Clerics will be able to easily create whatever magical items they desire.
In any world where there is a scarcity of magical items, the Fighter has to make due with what can be found, while the Wizard and the Cleric can craft on demand and will always be able to out-strip the Fighter in terms of equipment. It's only when you have so many spellcasters in the game world that they have the time and the inclination to craft magical items that allow fighters to bulk up their Will saves and put them on the free market that that they can get the equipment necessary to shore up their poor Will saves.
|
I would be more interested in debating suggestions on a spell by spell basis, rather than debating the apparent power of an entire class of spells en masse. A significant source of my opposition all along has been to the "factual statements" that all enchantment spells are "broken" and need "fixing". This I do not agree with. In fact this entire thread (and a few others just like it) have been turned into a rehash of already discussed and contentious topics/issues. This thread needs to refocus on the question at hand and move the rest to other more appropriate forums.I will concede this to you: I believe that the Enchantment (Compulsion) spells like Suggestion and Dominate are the type if spells that are busted. Based on what some of the people in this thread have said, I think that the Charm spells can probably stand as they are for the most part with a little fine-tuning and rules clarification. Here are the Enchantment (mostly Compulsion) spells that I believe need some work, and why.
Hideous Laughter - Works like Hold Person, doesn't allow for a round by round save to resist.
Suggestion - A lower-level version of the Dominate spells - can't be used to make a character attack his friends, but can be used to take a player out of combat with a properly worded Suggestion.
Confusion - Takes all characters in a 15 ft. burst that fail Will saves out of combat - only thing that makes it different from Hold Person is the fact that the affected characters only have a 75% chance of being useless per round (still not balanced, IMHO).
Feeblemind - Duration is too long. Guaranteed to work against Fighters, and extremely "swingy" against casters - it usually fails, but when it works, they are royally boned. If you implement round-by-round save mechanism, becomes completely useless against casters and other characters with high Will saves.
Mind Fog - A great spell for making characters that are unlikely to make their Will saves completely unable to make their Will saves....
Awesome!
Perfect!
Thank you!
Now I just need a few days. :)
Much like the way PF has "equaled" out the races (cumulative +2), why not equal out the saves across the classes? Each class would have 1 good save and 2 poor (or some other combo). I know that the saves are part of each classes build but maybe this wouldn't be too over balancing.
Because you still end up with "swingy" spell effects. Remember, I don't want Fighters to be immune to Enchantment (Compulsion) effects. Hell, I'm not even saying that they should give round-by-round saving throws for these effects outside of combat. I WANT Fighters to run around and try and hack up their companions for a few rounds.
What I DON'T want is for an effect like this to completely remove a player from the game for the duration of the combat. It's an all-or-nothing situation - either you make the save and you're still in the game, or you fail your save and you have to wait for someone to cast a counterspell on you.
If normalize these spell effects by shortening their duration by allowing for saves every round (like Hold Person) with an increasing chance of success (which needs to be done to make an impossible save merely almost impossible), you give the Fighters something to fear, but you don't completely bone them over whenever the worst comes to pass. They'll be out of the combat for 3 to 5 rounds (assuming no hard counter comes into play), and then they'll be ready to roll again.
And if you DO have a Wizard or a Cleric in your party, this does NOTHING to change your game AT ALL because 1) Wizards probably aren't casting this spell on Fighters in your games and 2) if someone does - BLAM- Protection From Evil.
Or (and I like this a little better) why do all fighters have to have inherently weak wills? Are there not fighters that don't fit that mold. Could you not be an extremely strong willed fighter who happens to have poor reflexes? What I am proposing is allow each character (by class) to choose which saves they excel at and those that do not...
[edit]Multi-classing and prestige class implications could be problematic in this type of system.
And there's your answer - it throws off balancing Prestige Classes AND makes backwards compatability more difficult.
Abraham, if the fighter uses a Winged Cloak, how could he use Cloak of Resistance at the same time? Wasn't that supposed to be the biggest single boost to his saves? That would be a whoppin' -5 to his saves, according to your calculations.
And, if your solution to this is that every warrior-type PC wears *identical* magic items at each level (i.e. the "optimal" choices), it's getting pretty boring fast.
This is 100% correct, and runs directly counter to one of Jason's stated design goals - encouraging players to use other magical items then the "standard loadout" that everyone uses right now.
Anyway, PF Beta doesn't say (to my knowledge) anything about Wealth by PC level or having to let your PCs go on a "shopping spree". They may be part of the 3.5 core rules and further elaborated on in certain supplements, but as I'm trying to run "Beta-faithful" campaign, I'm not using them (except for the Monster Manual).
Wealth By Level is a good mechanic for balancing out how many items a player may have... but all too often, players end up using this mechanic to cherry-pick exactly what items they want from magic shops, and some GMs are too timid to let them.
How many times can he cast that spell? He'll run out before I do I wager.
The question isn't how many times can someone cast that spell in an encounter - the question is how many potions will you drink over the course of an adventure before being able to stock up on potions again? In adventures with timelines or extended trips away from civilization, this is a very real issue to consider.
Also: what happens if Team Monster gets the jump on you before you drink your potion?
Drink it in round two, or hope someone scrolls me! We can what if all night long. I don't think it's broken where it is now.
Drink it in round two, or hope someone scrolls me! We can what if all night long. I don't think it's broken where it is now.
I still believe that it is. Right now, we're debating the mechanics of a spell based on how easily you can obtain magical items to counter the spell - the spell itself should be balanced and not wholly dependent on counterspells and items to provide that balance.
|
How many times can he cast that spell? He'll run out before I do I wager.The question isn't how many times can someone cast that spell in an encounter - the question is how many potions will you drink over the course of an adventure before being able to stock up on potions again? In adventures with timelines or extended trips away from civilization, this is a very real issue to consider.
Also: what happens if Team Monster gets the jump on you before you drink your potion?
How many encounters are you having with crtters that are doing this to you? If its all the time then your DM is doing bad things
How many critters are able to do it per encounter? If its only one then your mates get to pund him before he can do it again and you wear the effect. If it's multiple then your toast but I'm guessing other parties are as well.
Do they always target you or are other party members taken out as well? If its always the same guy, then see point 1 above
Do they respond to other threats to them or just drop the take out party member x spell every time? If not then why not? Why aren't they spending their action taking on the parties casters who's obviously a bigger threat (in the opinion of certain people)? Honestly, in a situation where you've got maybe three or four rounds to be effective, if the caster spends an action takin out the fighter, the other three or four members of your party are going to take them out just as quickly. Your fighter did his/her job by absorbing that action long enough for your mates to act.
There are spells everywhere that can target others as well. I trapped our group cleric in a maze spell because he had to roll a natural 20 to escape. He was there for the entire 13 rounds it took for the epic multiple wave combat to finish. You can drop casters with spells that target fortitude instead. Don't try taking on rogues with reflex save spells, use fortitiude or will and they're in trouble. Neither I nor the clerics player think that spell needs nerfing btw, it made for a great combat. I've played sessions where my caster was practically useless becasue he was prepared for one situation (overland jungle exploration with big nasty predators) then stumbled into a demon situation and had nothing to counter them with. Both situation and environment ddn't allow him the chance to respec so he got stuck feeling useless for two sessions. I lived with it.
There's plenty of simple methods to overcome it. If it happens all the time to a particular character then you probably need to talk to your DM as it sounds like they're stacking the game a little.
Some spells need to take opponents out for the duration of combats. Most combats last about 3 to 4 rounds. They go longer if there's multiple waves of oponents but mostly 3 to 4 is it. If you're asking to drop durations to 3 to 4 rounds I don't think it's gonna happen.
I agree with your take on blindness/deafness though. Permanent effect is pretty bad. They nerfed save or die spells, they should probably look at this one.
Cheers
|
|
Doesn't say any thing about wealth by level? Page 293 it's a nice table, fills up about half the page.
Also you can unslot a cloak of wings, or by winged boots... or a thousand other CORE suggestions. There is the carpet of flying, the broom, et al. Getting a resistance bonus to save throws is easy... becoming immune to mind affecting spells is just as easy, for most classes. Getting a potion to do the same is easy. A fighter that isn't prepared is going to die. That's the way it works. I agree some other means of adding to save throws could be nice... for the fighter, but I see it as something nice not something needed. Everyone else doesn't need anything more and save DC's for them are very low compared to save bonuses.
However I point out again that to take a gimped out fighter then saving he's weaked to a maxed out wizard is a very bad comparision.
Some means to increase DC for the wizard would be nice too. That 34 comes late in the game, and if you hit him with any INT damage he's completely undone.
Drink it in round two, or hope someone scrolls me! We can what if all night long. I don't think it's broken where it is now.
You're correct that the tables for NPC and PC 'Wealth by Level' exist, but I think both still need a lot of work, and after a couple of weird results I think I decided not to use them (and after that immediately cast ‘Modify Memory’ on myself to forget about them). ;)
Let’s take a look at them:
First of all, let's assume a scenatio in which the PCs are drawn into a fight with 9 local guards (let's say they're 3rd level Warriors), do you use the 'Treasure by Encounter' or 'NPC Wealth' table? Because the numbers differ greatly. Assuming, say, a 5th level party, that combat encounter would yield them, what, (low-fantasy campaign and non-heroic NPCs, i.e. 2nd level divided by half, right?) 300 GPs per guard, (including potions/scrolls) that total up to 2700 GPs. Wow, that's a lot of "loot", and even after deducing their gear (sword, shield and armor), that still makes a hefty sum in gold and gems (i.e. "leftover" money, about 100 GPs per guard, unless they're all carrying consumable items, which most city guards in most campaigns probably aren't). If you're using the Fast progression in a High Magic campaigns, those "rank-and-file" city guards would be *swimming* in treasure, it seems (i.e. 1200 GPs per guard). A non-heroic 3rd commoner could have the same amount of treasure as a starting character? The party rogue should just keep on robbing the local farmers, because that could yield a dragon's hoard worth of gold and gems...
Okay, let's take a look at the 'Treasure Values by Encounter'.. there's some contradiction in what page 292 (and the table itself) and page 297 (under the heading 'Tresure') say -- the latter seems to imply that Table 12-5 left column should actually say 'Challenge Rating' instead of 'Average Party Level'. However, page 292 and the table seem to say that each encounter should yield rewards based on the average party level. Let's ignore the "three times the treasure value against NPCs"-part (because that would be ridiculous in this case), but assume that this is an 'easy' encounter (i.e. level 4 rewards). Again, let's use the medium progression here, and that would give the PCs 1550 GPs worth treasure, i.e. 1550/9 = a bit over 172 GPs per guard. A far more reasonable sum, considering their gear, but what if there were just three guards -- still the same amount? A group of farmers? Uh, abusive players wouldn't probably even leave the town. And, I'm kind of confused here... should I use the NPC Gear table on page 338, or the Treasure Values Per Encounter on page 293? Or is the former intended for "major" NPCs only?
What's even stranger is that going by the Community Wealth Assets in DMG, the guards of the small town (Population 910, GP Limit 800, Cash Limit 36400) alone would have more “ready cash” (assume, say, 50 guards * 100 GPs = 5000 GPs) put together than many dragons in their hoards. Now, let’s deduce how much the rest of the town population has (36400 – 5000 divided by 860 = 36 GPs in average). And the common guards are thereby quite wealthy by usual standards (using 36400 / 910 = 40 GPs as the real average “savings” per each). Considering that the usual 1 GP/week income (at least in FR) that means that each of the guards have been saving money for 25 months, or a bit over two *years* without spending a single copper during that time. And the local farmers? Hmmm… weird, maybe I have messed up things here?
The trouble is, these tables do not know any sort of “social class” modifiers or treasure types – a 3rd level commoner yields just as much treasure as the 3rd level craftsman expert. Even killing a simple *beggar* would (going strictly by the rules) benefit the PCs. At least the previous editions acknowledged that not all monsters or NPCs yielded treasure. Also, there’s no “property” category here, which might help the occasional weird results (such as with farmers). Yes, the system works if you stick to “heroic” NPCs (i.e. “experienced” people such as other adventurers, “minions”, assassins, cultists, mercenaries and so on), but as I said in the first paragraph, I had really odd results with some “minions”, who ended up being just as rich as the nobleman whose manor the PCs were trashing. I suggest that there should be several “treasure type”-categories, e.g. ‘poor’, ‘average’, ‘rich’ and so on (for example, even a 1st level Aristocrat would have more treasure – likely as Art Objects – than a common orc). A system based on NPC/monster level or CR just doesn’t work, and the biggest caveat for me here is that you could get rich by robbing simple townsfolk (I’ve run games for people who got kicks out of doing something like that).
But let's also take a look at the PC Wealth by Level, and let’s assume that you’re running a campaign for 10th level characters, and I’m joining your campaign with a new 10th level fighter. Using the table on page 293 gives me 62000 GPs, right? And let’s assume you’re letting me to “cherry-pick” items out of the book -- like you’ve argued that each player should be allowed to do, right? Cloak of Resistance +5 would just be a start, and I’d leave a bit of cash to get that Belt of Physical Perfection (+4) at the first instance (or, I could buy the +2 version, but why bother, if you can wait for one level for an “upgraded” version). Likewise, Full Plate with ‘Medium Fortification’ would make my guy nigh-invulnerable to all crits… sweet! Who cares about Deflection bonus, or the actual armor/weapon enchantment bonus… you’ve got cleric and wizards to rack those up with spells, correct? Now, do you really think a 10th level PC should have +5 items or be practically vulnerable to crits? 4E introduced the 'Magic Item Levels', and frankly, I think that was a really good solution, because otherwise -- going by the rules – you could just pick the best from the book.
Now, about those potions and scrolls and spells you seem to mention every group having access to… like you’ve said yourself, ? you prefer to run rural campaigns, so I’m going to assume that it’s a rare village in which you can seel loot and buy a host of scrolls and potions – therefore, *WHERE* the PCs *are* going to get all those scrolls and potions you seem to take for granted in every encounter? What if you've just drunk the last potion, or used the last scroll? What if you can’t buy them enough, because you’ve just exhausted the meager local resources (going by the DMG community assets and “ready cash”) and they can’t buy your stack of masterwork items or other loot? And you don’t have cash enough to buy more than a single potion?
Alright, I’ll try to return to the actual topic here. You say that a high-level fighter having +8 Will Save Modifier (after burning a feat) going up against NPC spellcasters and monsters with spell/spell-like ability DCs 24+ (assuming no feats) is alright? Nothing wrong with this picture? What if he’s the only melee guy in the group? What if there are no cleric or wizards in the party ? What if you just *cannot* buy the items/potions/scrolls? And yet, do you *really* think that *every* high-level character should be prancing around with Ioun Stones, Cloaks of Resistance +5, Luckstones and so on? Or routinely waste a few rounds in combat quaffing potions. Because, frankly, it gets pretty boring soon, if all PCs share the same equipment with the same bonuses. Likewise, if you begin every combat with the same actions each time. And have you considered that as it stands now, there’s a huge “gap” between high-level save bonuses and spell DCs, which means that by buying/finding the best sort of equipment does not actually do nothing more than *reduce* the gap somewhat, i.e. you’re not actually getting a real “boost” from those items, not in the sense that you’re being “rewarded” for it. No, you only “offset” a certain penalty or *handicap*, i.e. you get +5 but you’re still far away from the Saving Throw Modifier you *should* have to fight effectively against spellcasters and monsters with spell-like abilities. To me it’s equivalent to using Lesser Restoration to heal some of the ability damage. And the saddest thing is that at high-levels it’s a rare adventure that only features “melee” monsters and NPCs, which effectively means that sooner or later the melee-type PCs (rogue, ranger, barbarian and fighter) *will* fall victim to a compulsion or ‘save-or-die/save-or-be-removed-from-the-fight-or-the-whole-session”.
Maybe I’m wrong, but to repeat myself, to me that’s a serious design flaw, which isn’t “patched” with magic items, scrolls, potions or spellcasters slavishly “boosting” your ability to stay in the fight.
And, BTW, my 18th level human fighter I've used as an example isn't exactly a "gimped" character by my standards, at least. Here are some of the stats:
STR 18, DEX 16, CON 18, INT 13, WIS 14, CHA 12, AC 24, 178 HPs, Init +7, Fort +16, Ref +10, Will +11 (Has 'Iron Will'), wields an artifact-level greatsword with +3 enchantment bonus (and a lot of powers I'm not even aware of).
Yet in every session I need to roll routinely against DC 30+, which is pretty hard even with Fort-based saves -- even though my character has pretty good saving throws (and stats) for a fighter. Or perhaps you disagree?
I think every level 20 character should have near epic level items yes. After all they are 20th level, the stuff they do is of legends, the items they use are legendary and the tasks before them herculean. We aren't talking about joe smoe the 3rd level fighter anymore. We are talking about Joey Strongarm the World's best swordsman. A title he's probably earned along the way.
And if your fighter wants to spend 25,000 gp on a cloak +5, and 16,000 gp on +1 Armor of Mod Fortification I'm ok with that... however you've missed some parts to that table and topic again, same page under those tables:
"For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items (like potions, scrolls, and wands), and 10% on ordinary gear and coins."
Also:
Page 291:
"Adding NPCs: Creatures without racial Hit Dice are factored into combats a little differently than normal monsters or monsters with class levels. A creature that possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –2. A creature that only possesses non-player class levels (such as a warrior or adept) is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –3. "
Meaning each of those warrior is a CR rating 0. Very easy for 4 actual PC's after all one, maybe two spells and all the warriors fall over dead, and that's if the PC don't decide to just let the fighter have fun. The CR comes out to 5... Now these are in my opinion not NPCs. I haven't named them, don't have backstory for them, they are the city equilivent of mooks.
"Easy encounters should award treasure one level lower than the PCs’ average level"
Well this is an easy encounter so we'll go with the level 4 treasure listing... medium is 1,150gp. divide among nine guards means 127 gp 7 sp 7 cp. So a Long sword, short bow, 20 arrows, heavy steel shield, Scale mail each... 15+30+1+20+50 = 116 gp Hm... give them some signal whistles, clothing and a few coins in their pockets (from bribes) and call them done... of course all the equipment has the guard insignia on it so go luck selling it locally ;D. IF the PC's have the weight and room and time to strip these men down and take their stuff then yes I don't mind them having it.
After all we then get the fun of considering the implications of them hunting down and killing the town guard!
The biggest problem is of course just looking at the charts and not reading all the text around them. The text explains that encounters should give items by Average party level, not encounter level. It also points out that actual NPCs give out about 3 times the loot that's normally available, and therefore the DM should have 2 extra encounters with little to no loot available.
Again it's all in the book... but like 1st and 2nd edition and 3rd and 3.5 there are differences and they are huge! Reading the whole text is important becuase it explains what the tables mean.
Give me a full read out on your fighter please. I can't really make an assessment of my own knowing so little about him.
|
|
Yet in every session I need to roll routinely against DC 30+, which is pretty hard even with Fort-based saves -- even though my character has pretty good saving throws (and stats) for a fighter. Or perhaps you disagree?
If you're consistantly rolling against saves of 30 or more then your DM is stacking things against you. I just went through the Age of Worms module for 18th level (Kings of the Rift). There are two encounters where players have to face a DC higher than 30, and neither is a will save (one is actually a very ridicuous DC 41 fort save and potential TPK fight, so I think I'll need to be careful with that one).
The rest of the encounters have saves in the mid to high 20's, and that's for the hardest of the creatures abilities. I also flicked through the previous game which was a lvl 16 - 18 game and it didn't have save DC's above the 30 range either. I seriously think your view may be skewed by a loaded game. However, it would be interesting to find out how many other players are copping save DC's above 30 consistantly.
Also, AC 24 at level 18 is pretty rough, but I'm not sure how you built your character. Against most things you're up against at this level, that isn't going to prove much of an obstical for multiple attack situations.
So you're getting slammed with consitantly overpowered save DC's and getting hit regularly by the enemy. I'd be having a quiet word to the DM if I were you.
Cheers
|
|
I think every level 20 character should have near epic level items yes. After all they are 20th level, the stuff they do is of legends, the items they use are legendary and the tasks before them herculean. We aren't talking about joe smoe the 3rd level fighter anymore. We are talking about Joey Strongarm the World's best swordsman. A title he's probably earned along the way.
In a 'High Fantasy' campaign, yes. But whether Joey Strongarm is the "World's Bestest Halberdier" means very little, unless he's also the "World's Bestest Halberdier with Great Will Saves" -- sort of the point of this thread, right? Whether the latter part of his title comes from magic items, potions, or from the help of his spellcasting "buddies" (Devout Dave, who's the "World's Bestest Cleric with Buffs" or Tinkerer Tim, whose title is "World's Bestest Magic Item Crafter") the sad truth is that unless high level saving throws are brought into balance with the DCs of SOD/SOS-spells and monster spell-like abilities, he *CANNOT* function without magical help/items, right? If he tries that, he'llprobably spends most of his gaming time out of the action. This problem is only *highlighted* in Epic High Fantasy campaigns where spellcasters and magic are typical in every adventure.
And if your fighter wants to spend 25,000 gp on a cloak +5, and 16,000 gp on +1 Armor of Mod Fortification I'm ok with that... however you've missed some parts to that table and topic again, same page under those tables:
"For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items (like potions, scrolls, and wands), and 10% on ordinary gear and coins."
No, I didn't miss that. Let's read that sentence again: "For a *BALANCED* approach, PCs that are built after 1st level *SHOULD* spend no more...". It does not say, for example: "PCs that are built after 1st level cannot spend more than...". It's a suggestion, for people who want to ensure that the PCs are more *balanced* -- I know that many GMs just handwave that whole sentence away as an "optional advice". So, it does not explicitly say that I would be *breaking* the rules, if I buy, say, a Cloak of Resistance +5 for my 10th level PC.
And, even adhering to that sentence I would be able to buy a Cloak of Resistance +4 and the Belt of Physical Perfection (both 16000 GPs, i.e. about 26% of the total wealth, but I think that would be "close enough" for most GMs).
Also:Page 291:
"Adding NPCs: Creatures without racial Hit Dice are factored into combats a little differently than normal monsters or monsters with class levels. A creature that possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –2. A creature that only possesses non-player class levels (such as a warrior or adept) is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –3. "
Meaning each of those warrior is a CR rating 0. Very easy for 4 actual PC's after all one, maybe two spells and all the warriors fall over dead, and that's if the PC don't decide to just let the fighter have fun. The CR comes out to 5... Now these are in my opinion not NPCs. I haven't named them, don't have backstory for them, they are the city equilivent of mooks.
"Easy encounters should award treasure one level lower than the PCs’ average level"
Well this is an easy encounter so we'll go with the level 4 treasure listing... medium is 1,150gp. divide among nine guards means 127 gp 7 sp 7 cp. So a Long sword, short bow, 20 arrows, heavy steel shield, Scale...
Um... did you read my post? Because I am fairly sure that I mentioned these things:
1) It is an 'easy' encounter (no question there)
2) CR apparently plays no part in how treasure each encounter yields -- APL, however, does.
3) Treasure and gear for NPCs is determined by *LEVEL* (and I think I distinctly mentioned these being "basic" NPCs in a low-fantasy campaign). I think I also divided the sum by half, i.e. according to the 'Low Fantasy'
4) The *NUMBER* of guards plays no part in how much tresure they yield -- hence my comment about *three* guards having as much gold and gear as nine.
5) I also think I mentioned that my examples are *IGNORING* the X3 multiplier for NPCs, because I'm treating the guards as "non-heroic" NPCs (so you can triple the sums above if you're insisting on going strictly by the *RULES* and using it).
6) And, I commented on how there is no treasure types or social factors noted in these tables, which practically means that using the APL for rewards means that one or two simple *farmers* might yield the same amount of treasure as twenty guards -- unless treated as individual NPCs (and still they have an unrealistic amount of money and gear on them).
Also, PCs could easily be drawn into a combat encounter with common town guards -- they could be "corrupt", and/or the town itself could be evil-aligned (many such places in Forgotten Realms, for example). The basic assumption need not be that the PCs are behaving in an "unheroic" fashion -- this might be, for example, a "storyline encounter" (corrupt guards underestimating and trying to rob the PCs), or the PCs might have a personal reason to go after them.
*READ* my posts before replying to them, because I think I *DID* comment on everything you so haughtily accuse me of "missing" in the text around the tables. Thank you.
I think every level 20 character should have near epic level items yes. After all they are 20th level, the stuff they do is of legends, the items they use are legendary and the tasks before them herculean. We aren't talking about joe smoe the 3rd level fighter anymore. We are talking about Joey Strongarm the World's best swordsman. A title he's probably earned along the way.
In a 'High Fantasy' campaign, yes. But whether Joey Strongarm is the "World's Bestest Halberdier" means very little, unless he's also the "World's Bestest Halberdier with Great Will Saves" -- sort of the point of this thread, right? Whether the latter part of his title comes from magic items, potions, or from the help of his spellcasting "buddies" (Devout Dave, who's the "World's Bestest Cleric with Buffs" or Tinkerer Tim, whose title is "World's Bestest Magic Item Crafter") the sad truth is that unless high level saving throws are brought into balance with the DCs of SOD/SOS-spells and monster spell-like abilities, he *CANNOT* function without magical help/items, right? If he tries that, he'llprobably spends most of his gaming time out of the action. This problem is only *highlighted* in Epic High Fantasy campaigns where spellcasters and magic are typical in every adventure.
Well, shouldn't it be a possibility that Joey Strongarm might be weak-willed eventhough he is "the World's bestest Halbardier (WBH)"? He could be "WBH with Great Will Saves" if you had chosen to build him like that, however having not he is "WBH with Not So Great Will Saves". Your argument seems to presume, that you fighter should be awesome towards any challange he faces. Even heroic characters should have some weaknesses, in your case it's his willpower. I don't think any high level fighter should have the greatest willpower in the world. In stories it is often their downfall to be charmed by some not so innocent damsel.
As it has been stated some times now, if you encounter impossible 30+ will saves that often, which ruin your game, you should properbly talk to your gm about it.
Does this mean that any class who use enchantment spells should be nerfed because the fighter class has a weakness regarding will saves?
Isn't what your seeking (though I disagree on this point) that the will saves of the fighter is raised? Then i don't think the subject on nerfing enchantment spells is relevant. Would it even help you to get a second will save, if the second roll is as impossible as the first?
Asgetrion...
come on read the section. The number of creatures involved directly affects the easy of the encounter as per page 291. The easy encounter gives treasure as APL - 1 which would be 4. Meaning that that much treasure is split up among the guards. The treasure, in this case, is the equipment the guards are using. Nothing there said the treasure would be directly useful to the PCs. Merely that this is the treasure they get. I gave them the treasure. Unfortunately they won't be able to access the entire worth of that treasure right off the bat, but hey that happens.
Even if the guards are corrupt or whatever, people in the town probably aren't going to buy obivously city guard equipment. If the equipment isn't obviously city guard equipment (the guards being mercaneries in the employment of some evil wizard for example) then the PC's can sell the treasure for half its value.
I do not understand why you are attacking me over this. I'm explaining what the rules themselves say on the subject.
On a note about Joey strongarm... ok he's great with a polearm and has great equipment... why should he have a good will save again?
|
|
Asgetrion...come on read the section. The number of creatures involved directly affects the easy of the encounter as per page 291. The easy encounter gives treasure as APL - 1 which would be 4. Meaning that that much treasure is split up among the guards. The treasure, in this case, is the equipment the guards are using. Nothing there said the treasure would be directly useful to the PCs. Merely that this is the treasure they get. I gave them the treasure. Unfortunately they won't be able to access the entire worth of that treasure right off the bat, but hey that happens.
Uh, didn't I say so in my post? Easy encounter with non-heroic NPCS, and I think I split the APL 4 treasure between the guards -- even noting that if there were only *three* guards, their personal shares would be unrealistically high? Please, read both of my posts again. And, I also think that I mentioned which *gear* that "share" would be "spent" on (i.e. armor, shield, weapon...)?
Even if the guards are corrupt or whatever, people in the town probably aren't going to buy obivously city guard equipment. If the equipment isn't obviously city guard equipment (the guards being mercaneries in the employment of some evil wizard for example) then the PC's can sell the treasure for half its value.
I do not understand why you are attacking me over this. I'm explaining what the rules themselves say on the subject.
As did I. The reason why I came at you in an aggressive manner is that you obviously didn't my post, or skipped over the sentences in which I noted the very same things you claimed I had not read "in the text around the tables". So, you repeated the same things I had already said, and "scolded" me for ignoring them.
On a note about Joey strongarm... ok he's great with a polearm and has great equipment... why should he have a good will save again?
It's not just Will Saves -- he should have reasonable chance to hold his ground against magic (i.e. *at least* 40-50% chance) to be able to, well, *fight*. Even if Joey Strongarm has STR 60+, and he was really the Strongest and Bestest Fighter in the world, in a typical high-level 'High Fantasy' campaign he quite soon becomes a "burden" to his comrades, and surprisingly often needs to be resurrected/turned back into flesh/released from paralysis and so on. And I don't think Joey's player enjoys retiring to the living room to watch TV for *hours* (or even going home to watch TV) when his buddies are in the middle of a long adventure and can't do anything for him. Even if he was only hit with a SOS-effect, he will probably skip the whole combat.
And it's not just Joey the fighter -- it's also Reggie the Ranger, Rudolf the Rogue and Benny the World's Fiercest Barbarian who *ALL* need a "boost" to their Will Saves (And Rudolf better not be hit with a SOD-effect, because that spells an almost certain death for him). My point is that the saves do *NOT* scale in balance to the saving throw modifiers for the "melee" classes -- death and misfortune and hardships *are* part of the game, but should *not* be constant source of trouble for the PCs. At least for "heroic" PCs -- unless you, as a player, get a kick out of being paralyzed/petrified/killed for failing a single D20 roll.
As I understand it, you would like to have the 40-50 percent chance for avoided magic effects without having to have specific magic items/spells cast.
How much should the percentage then be, if your fighter actually was "WBH with Great Will Save"? Should spells have almost no effect on you what so ever?
What about spellcaster PCs? Should these only have a 50-60 percent chance for their spells to work against non-will-save spec'ed enemies? This would in turn render the almost useless against enemies with high will saves.
|
|
As I understand it, you would like to have the 40-50 percent chance for avoided magic effects without having to have specific magic items/spells cast.
How much should the percentage then be, if your fighter actually was "WBH with Great Will Save"? Should spells have almost no effect on you what so ever?What about spellcaster PCs? Should these only have a 50-60 percent chance for their spells to work against non-will-save spec'ed enemies? This would in turn render the almost useless against enemies with high will saves.
Oh, I don't think that "WBH with Great Will Save" would be more than, say, +4 (at maximum) above the "norm", i.e. giving you 60-70 % chance to save against the such effects. That's not too much, I think. And note that this would require burning a feat or two -- I don't see why 'Iron Will', 'Great Fortitude' and 'Lightning Reflexes' wouldn't scale up with your levels (i.e. +1 per four or five levels, or something).
At the moment the spellcasters are the most versatile and powerful class. A high-level wizard has plenty of spells to choose from that render the fighter completely impotent, and if he's maxed-out the DCs, Joey needs a natural 20 to succesfully save. Heck, at 20th level even a Bard could kill Joey pretty easily with his "cap" ability.
The game breaks down at level 11+, when 'save-or-die'/'save-or-be-removed-from-combat-or-the-whole-session'-effects become a regular part of most 'High Fantasy' D&D campaigns. Your GM might use a Beholder or two, or perhaps you guys will face Mind Flayers, or a Succubus, or some other monster with spell-like abilities that have relatively high DCs for poor Joey. And, some GMs seem to think that since an NPC or monster has high INT, it's okay to target a character with a minimal chance of success with one of its most effective powers or spells (this is, in my experience, a *VERY* common GM tactic). Also, most GMs also assume that the party makes so much noise/has been scried upon (or simply because it's more "thrilling" and "challenging") that it's justified to use the "power-up suite" version of the BBEG and his minions (i.e. they've cast all "buffs" on themselves before the party arrives).
Here's how high-level encounters usually go in out campaigns (all names and actual dialogue is fictional, though):
Rudolf the Rogue wins initiative, but chooses to delay, because he doesn't want to charge into combat. He waits until Joey has acted. Joey the Fighter acts next, turning to scream at his fellows (as a free action): "Cedric the Cleric and Winfred the Wizard -- you better do your magic *FAST*!" and then he downs a potion from his belt, and moves towards the BBEG, failing his Will Save to penetrate the 'Antipathy'-aura. BBEG goes next -- he casts a Quickened 'Disintegrate' at Rudolf, who vanishes in a green flash of light, leaving only a small pile of dust on the floor. Then, he casts a Mass Hold Person. Joey becomes rigid as a statue, and is easily Coup-De-Graced by the BBEG's minions. Cedric and Winifred act next... (and so on).
Usually these encounters lead to the wizard (who often stays far behind, just in case) escaping and getting the rest of the party resurrected in the closest town.
Yeah, nothing wrong there -- must be just us playing "wrong" or being poor "optimizers", right?
the spell itself should be balanced and not wholly dependent on counterspells and items to provide that balance.
I'm sorry, but I must wholeheartedly disagree. Whether a spell is balanced or not is completely dependant on whether it can be countered. Darkness is countered by Light. Damage spells are countered by healing or protection spells. If these counters didn't exist, the spells become much more powerful.
Spells that have less counters have a higher value, and are placed in higher level slots.That's the reason for having a spellcaster in the group... to counter spells with spells. If you don't have a spellcaster, you have to do the same as when you don't have healing: find alternative options.
...
High level D&D is about high level magic. Monsters are built around it. Classes are built around it. Magic Items are built around it.
You have to take them all into account when considering the balance of a particular spell.
Now, I'm not saying no change should be considered here.
However, if you don't take into account things like Protection from Evil, you are not taking into account the standard D&D game. Make Enchantment spells too easy WITHOUT altering the counter spells... and you make standard D&D far easier.
If you are advocating making it easier to resist Compulsion effects in general, then my suggestion would be to consider making Protection spells weaker (granting a bonus to saves instead of an immunity, etc).
Personally... I don't know if this would be a necessary change. My own personal experience (both as DM and player) with compulsions has been fine.
The way it usually runs is that in the mid/low levels, the Fighter gets hit with the Compulsion spell, and depending on the urgency of the situation, a spellcaster retorts with a Protection from Evil or something that clears the effect.
At higher levels I've found that Magic Circle against Evil makes combat actually exciting. The Fighter has to keep close to his allies, and anytime he or the caster needs to run in a different direction, they feel exposed. A Fighter with Protection with Evil and Fly gets hit with a Dispel Magic, and now new tactics have to be considered.. possibly a retreat, or pulling out backup options (potions, scrolls).
Just because it's "all or nothing", doesn't make it a show-stopper... as long as you take into consideration the Counters.
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.
Even further, all spells should do only HP damage (and maybe daze or push the target for one round or one square). And welcome to 4e, the game where nobody is afraid of any spell.
Asgetrion: Personally I have never encountered many problems with these spells. Well they might be annoying in the midst of an encounter for a character, who is removed from combat. But it hasn't resulted in TPK. Well, we often have a cleric a long, but not always.
I have to repeat that I think the main problem is the GM style. I my experience, a GM who sees it as his goal to kill the players (and thats a lousy GM in my book), will often succeed in this task. No matter what means he uses.
It should be easy to talk to your GM about these things. And it should be his responsibility to accomodate your play style and ensure your fun.
BTW, I think letting the saving throw feats scale with level is a great idea.
|
|
I would just like to add my voice to the side who feels the charm/enchantment spells are just fine the way they are. In fact, any spell that gets a save to avoid its effects becomes less and less likely to even take hold as the level of caster/target goes up. At high level, spells such as the enchantment/charm are not even going to work because there is no component to the casters DC that incorporates the casters level advancement, but targets Saves go up and up.
... all the way up to +6 for non-spellcasting classes (at about the same rate the caster's ability score goes up). And how mane barbarians or fighters or rogues can invest in high WIS? In my group, four PCs will end up with +5 at 20th level (because they used WIS as their "Dump Stat"). The *best* case scenario (without "buffs" or items) is probably +10 (+2 from WIS and +2 from 'Iron Will'). Most spellcasters probably have, what, DC 25 (at least) by that level.
the spell itself should be balanced and not wholly dependent on counterspells and items to provide that balance.I'm sorry, but I must wholeheartedly disagree. Whether a spell is balanced or not is completely dependant on whether it can be countered. Darkness is countered by Light. Damage spells are countered by healing or protection spells. If these counters didn't exist, the spells become much more powerful.
So you're ok with instant death from falling, then? What about instant death from any negative energy effect? Both of these are effects that can be countered by spells - by your reasoning, we shouldn't have any mechanics like "determining falling damage" or "negative levels" because we have spells that are hard counters to these effects.
However, if you don't take into account things like Protection from Evil, you are not taking into account the standard D&D game. Make Enchantment spells too easy WITHOUT altering the counter spells... and you make standard D&D far easier.
If you want to play a "standard" D&D game where you HAVE to have Wizards and Clerics, then you should be playing 4th Edition. And as I've noted earlier in the thread, this change wouldn't change the tactics of your "standard" party - just parties that would otherwise be screwed over by a lack of Protection From Evil spells (i.e. parties with Druids and Bards).
Asgetrion: Personally I have never encountered many problems with these spells. Well they might be annoying in the midst of an encounter for a character, who is removed from combat. But it hasn't resulted in TPK.
It may not result in a TPK, but it usually DOES result in a player unable to do anything in combat, and then they wander off to find something else to do. I realize that everyone is upset with the "over-nerfing" of spells in 4th Edition, but they did get it right when it came to the adjucation of status effects.
|
|
So you're ok with instant death from falling, then? What about instant death from any negative energy effect? Both of these are effects that can be countered by spells - by your reasoning, we shouldn't have any mechanics like "determining falling damage" or "negative levels" because we have spells that are hard counters to these effects.
I am, for one, be OK with instant death from falling (over a certain height mind you). I find PCs who purposely throw themselves from great heights, secure in the knowledge that on average they will take 70 HP of dmg (and possibly a DC Fort save versus massive damage), extremely annoying and unrealistic. And no, I don't think that "but they are a hero!" is a good enough reason to allow this. I have house ruled this in my games for years, but I am not on this forum pushing for changes to the damage from falling rules. Why? Because I understand and respect the choice to keep damage less realistic and more abstract in the RAW. I don't expect everyone to have to shift their games to meet my vision.
Along that same idea, yes I am/was OK with save-or-die, instant death from negative levels etc. I think that those type of spells help keep the fear in players, that would be/is otherwise missing when those consequences are no longer "on the table". Sometimes actual fear (of a lost character) is a great motivator/mood builder. If your players have nothing to fear, I think that the fun diminishes to an extent IMO. Besides character death is hardly more than a minor inconvenience for higher level characters and I would hope that this type of attack would be used sparingly by responsible GMs against lower level characters.
If you want to play a "standard" D&D game where you HAVE to have Wizards and Clerics, then you should be playing 4th Edition. And as I've noted earlier in the thread, this change wouldn't change the tactics of your "standard" party - just parties that would otherwise be screwed over by a lack of Protection From Evil spells (i.e. parties with Druids and Bards).
And as I've noted (among others), you don't need Wizards and Clerics in your games. If that's the way you want to play then have your GM make the necessary changes to your game.
Stop telling people to go play 4th edition. It's annoying to say the least.
Stop talking at people and start talking with people.
Generally speaking, things that you propose aren't totally disagreeable, it is your tact and tone that I personally have trouble with.
|
|
..and as I've noted earlier in the thread, this change wouldn't change the tactics of your "standard" party - just parties that would otherwise be screwed over by a lack of Protection From Evil spells (i.e. parties with Druids and Bards).
After reading this part again, I must strenuously disagree with you. The tactics of your "standard" party would indeed be affected. The "standard" party would now have an even greater advantage in their respective campaigns and as such would require changes to "re-balance" things from their perspective.
You can't move the "base line" too far either direction without wreaking havok with the balance on the other side of the equation.
So you're ok with instant death from falling, then? What about instant death from any negative energy effect? Both of these are effects that can be countered by spells - by your reasoning, we shouldn't have any mechanics like "determining falling damage" or "negative levels" because we have spells that are hard counters to these effects.
Isn't this a strawman? (I'm not totally familiar with argumentative fallacies, sorry if I'm getting mixed up).
I thought we were talking about a subset of a school of magic. Why would we start changing the whole game to work this way? Falling damage isn't a specific magic attack... it's a reality mimicking game mechanic.
I don't think anyone said we need to change anything else. Just because I personally find the "all or nothing" aspect of Compulsions exciting, doesn't mean I suddenly want to change Falling Damage or Negative Levels to be the same way.
Each aspect of the game can be looked at in different ways.
Plus, I think you might be a little too much in "Attack Mode", because the point of my post wasn't to say we shouldn't consider any changes (something I specifically say in my post, which you didn't quote).
I just said that if you make Compulsions easier to bypass, then you might want to consider reducing the defenses against them so Compulsions aren't reduced in value overall.
I'm not saying "you're trying to kill the Enchanter", but really.. if you take power away from an aspect, you might want to give it back in another place. And that takes looking at the defenses side.
Like I said before:
Please come up with a response for the above requote before tearing into my post.
If you want to play a "standard" D&D game where you HAVE to have Wizards and Clerics, then you should be playing 4th Edition.
I'm sorry, but I found this funny. I'm not being mean, but I liked the irony of it (4e being considered the first official D&D game that doesn't require spellcasting out of the box, because of non-caster healing/roles). Also because of the use of "go play 4e" or playing a "standard" game like it's supposed to be an insult or something.
My point there was just to show that since the beginning, the game has been assuming you had your four bases covered (combat, skills, healing and magic).
The higher level you get in any edition of D&D, the more important magic became... or rather, the more poignant the lack of magic became.
You can't really look at core 3.5e and tell me that high level gaming isn't about Magic (items or spells). Core rules = "the standard" here.
I was under the impression that Pathfinder wasn't going to stray too far from the standard of core 3.5e. Considering most adventure paths and campaign settings out there that people are still wanting to use have been made with this standard in mind... it would be against the design intention to start going against the standard now.
To put it simply... an adventure path that was written with Compulsion working in a certain way (dangerous), could have encounters that would no longer be as dangerous a fight and would likely need to be retooled by the DM if changes were made.
And now you have a DM deciding whether to risk making a fight tougher, and potentially souring the experience with a TPK, or letting the players have an easier time and making the encounter less "epic" or fun.
.
Lastly, I'm not saying "non-standard" gaming groups are bad, stupid or anything but a perfectly acceptable way to play. However, if you are intending to play non-standard in a core rules adventure, with a core rules book, then you'll have to take that into consideration at the DM/Player level. It's not really a design level thing.
Personally, I feel that the E6 game concept does MUCH better in encapsulating the low magic (or rather, magic doesn't always have to be the answer) game feel.
I'd love to start a campaign in an E6 game sometime.
But I'm not going to expect Jason to make Pathfinder non-standard "safe".
I am, for one, be OK with instant death from falling (over a certain height mind you).
So you're ok with instant death from falling, then? What about instant death from any negative energy effect? Both of these are effects that can be countered by spells - by your reasoning, we shouldn't have any mechanics like "determining falling damage" or "negative levels" because we have spells that are hard counters to these effects.
Nope. Sorry. There's a magical counter to falling damage. Therefore, death from falling is 100% ok. There's a magical counter, so instant death from falling is balanced.
Alas, That's the EXACT same logic that's being applied to Save Or Die spells and Enchantment [Compulsion] spells.
And as I've noted (among others), you don't need Wizards and Clerics in your games. If that's the way you want to play then have [b]your GM make the necessary changes to your game.
Pathfinder should not be set up in such a way that players are forced to have certain classes in order to have a decent party. We should be making the rules changes necessary to allow for non-standard parties to be somewhat more viable.
And given the fact that these changes will have ZERO impact on how you play your obviously superior games - what with your party compsition determined by ancient Gamer Law and all that - I don't understand why you would want to block a rule change that would 1) promote party diversity and 2) keep players from walking away from the gaming table because their character has been mind-controlled and they can't do squat for the next hour or so. Your party can cast Protection From Evil all the live long day - how is this rule change going to change your strategies, exactly?
Stop telling people to go play 4th edition. It's annoying to say the least.
Then quit telling me that I HAVE to have certain classes in my party to play Pathfinder. If I wanted to do that, I'd be playing 4th Edition.
|
Then quit telling me that I HAVE to have certain classes in my...(rest of quote cut off, too long)
Um, that has been a premise in AD&D since first edition, actually. IT is the ONLY thing that 4e still has that resembles the D&D I grew up with.
Sueki, seriously. There has to be some kind of presumption that designers can hang a hat on, and, in D&D for 30 years, that presumption has been arcane/divine/stealth/muscle make up a "typical" party. Otherwise, published adventures would have to have several "versions" tailored for what each group prefers, or they'd never sell (and, at the cost point that would create, they'd probably never get published...).
If you want to play a game outside of the presumed parameters, that's cool. I have, and I've had a blast doing it. But, and this is a big one, the GM has to be willing to put in the work. Tailor things to the group. Designers cannot, seriously, CANNOT write commercial products that take into account every play style. I know a lot of us have too much going on, and prefer to lean on published stuff as we don't have time to write our own stuff anymore (like now, I don't care for APs much, but I work too much and have other things going on, so I run them just to play - I prefer doing my homebrew stuff, but time is the great enemy right now), but if you're going to "think outside the box", it may be a tad unfair to expect Jason, et al, to expand a box too much that has existed for so long.
Please don't go all "well, go play 4e" over an issue that has pretty much existed since day one :)
So you're ok with instant death from falling, then? What about instant death from any negative energy effect? Both of these are effects that can be countered by spells - by your reasoning, we shouldn't have any mechanics like "determining falling damage" or "negative levels" because we have spells that are hard counters to these effects.Isn't this a strawman? (I'm not totally familiar with argumentative fallacies, sorry if I'm getting mixed up).
I thought we were talking about a subset of a school of magic. Why would we start changing the whole game to work this way? Falling damage isn't a specific magic attack... it's a reality mimicking game mechanic.
This is not a straw man argument. This is what happens when I apply your premise - that spell counters are all that is needed to balance effects and that no other counters or mechanics are required for game balance - and apply them to other parts of the rules. It's the same logical reasoning - it just doesn't look so good when applied to the rest of the rules (nor should it).
I just said that if you make Compulsions easier to bypass, then you might want to consider reducing the defenses against them so Compulsions aren't reduced in value overall.
I'm not looking to change the way that parties with Wizards and Clerics counter Enchantment [Compulsion] effects. I'm not opposed to the existence of a hard counter to these spells - I'm opposed to the lack of any counters at all for parties that don't have a Wizard or a Cleric in their party.
If you allow for a round-by-round save against Compulsions in combat, it allows parties without Wizards and Clerics to fare better against opponents that are using these kinds of magics instead of being completely boned. So you can have a Druid and a Bard instead of a Wizard and a Cleric, and your low Will-save characters will probably only be enslaved in combat for 3 to 5 rounds instead of the entire combat.
They'll still feel the power of the spell - there's no bones about that - but they won't necessarily be taken out of the whole combat and they'll stay more engaged in the game - even if it's just to roll a saving throw every few rounds.
The higher level you get in any edition of D&D, the more important magic became... or rather, the more poignant the lack of magic became.
You can't really look at core 3.5e and tell me that high level gaming isn't about Magic (items or spells). Core rules = "the standard" here.
You're right. As it stands right now, D20 3.5 is completely dependant on high-level magic. That's why Wizards and Clerics are Tier 1 characters and Fighters are Tier 5 characters. It's also why everyone has the EXACT same equipment on every character, lest they die instantly because they fail a saving throw. No one is going to take a Flying Cloak when they know it's going to knock down all of their saving throw rolls by 3 to 5 points. That's an extra 15% to 25% chance that you're going to be killed or Dominated if you fail a saving throw, and few people are going to be willing to take that gamble - not even if they can fly around all day.
Jason stated early on that one of the design goals of Pathfinder would be to encourage people to use magical items that aren't really being used right now. I think that unless we allow for round-by-round saves against effects that take characters out of combat, this design goal will be an impossible dream.
Sueki, seriously. There has to be some kind of presumption that designers can hang a hat on, and, in D&D for 30 years, that presumption has been arcane/divine/stealth/muscle make up a "typical" party. Otherwise, published adventures would have to have several "versions" tailored for what each group prefers, or they'd never sell (and, at the cost point that would create, they'd probably never get published...).
Do you REALLY think that a rules change that would allow characters to make round-by-round saving throws against effects that take them out of combat is going to discourage people from making typical parties? Or that it will render game designers unable to make adventures? Or that it completely break most of the adventures that have already been published that are floating around out there? I find that very hard to believe. Implementing a simple mechanic to balance these kinds of effects is not going to break these adventures, break the game, or cause game designers to gnash their teeth and wail in agony.
BTW - I just realized that Command, Greater - the 5th Level Clerical Enchantment [Compulsion] spell - also allows for a round by round save. I have to wonder why Dominate Person/Monster doesn't, especially since it is actually a more powerful effect then Command.
So why hasn't this been implemented across the board yet, I wonder?
|
|
BTW - I just realized that Command, Greater - the 5th Level Clerical Enchantment [Compulsion] spell - also allows for a round by round save. I have to wonder why Dominate Person/Monster doesn't, especially since it is actually a more powerful effect then Command.
So why hasn't this been implemented across the board yet, I wonder?
Maybe because Dominate is a more powerful effect?
I don't care if PF goes to "round to round" save effects, it will only affect me during PFS play, frankly. I still use the 1e versions of spells in my homebrew (descriptions, that is. Fireballs expand, no caps on evocation spells - yes, Virginia, 17d6 lightning bolts still exist, disintegrate disintegrates, polymorph will ruin your day, etc...).
All I was saying is that the game is based on the big four being in a party.
For the record, the "save every round" thing is exactly what they do in 4e. :)
Maybe because Dominate is a more powerful effect?BTW - I just realized that Command, Greater - the 5th Level Clerical Enchantment [Compulsion] spell - also allows for a round by round save. I have to wonder why Dominate Person/Monster doesn't, especially since it is actually a more powerful effect then Command.
So why hasn't this been implemented across the board yet, I wonder?
If Command, Greater is a weaker effect then Dominate Person, and Command, Greater allows for a round-by-round saving throw, why doesn't Dominate Person offer a round by round saving throw? If this was considered to be essential to balancing a weaker effect, then why isn't it present in the description of Dominate Person?
Hell, why isn't it balanced against the 4th level spell Confusion, which also allows you to take multiple characters out of combat, albeit with only a 75% chance per round that they will do nothing productive (and often times they won't be able to do anything constructive even when they ARE in control of their faculties).
Keep in mind that Dominate Person and Command, Greater are BOTH 5th level spells. They should be relatively close to each other in terms of power. Command, Greater isn't even balanced against Confusion - a 4th level Wizard effect with a 15ft. burst based on a Will Save that takes the same number of people out of combat.
For the record, the "save every round" thing is exactly what they do in 4e.
And it's probably one of the few things that they did right in that game IMHO.
This is not a straw man argument. This is what happens when I apply your premise - that spell counters are all that is needed to balance effects and that no other counters or mechanics are required for game balance - and apply them to other parts of the rules. It's the same logical reasoning - it just doesn't look so good when applied to the rest of the rules (nor should it).
Isn't that the very definition of a strawman though? Now that I've looked it up:
Just because something sounds absurd when it's applied to areas we aren't proposing it should be applied to, doesn't mean it's still absurd in this particular situation.
Edit: Please note, I'm not saying your statement is a strawman to "call you out" or be a jerk or anything. I'm trying to accurately explain why your statement isn't applicable.
..
As for the rest...
I'm saying that making Compulsions easier to resist weakens them (I can't see how anyone can't agree with that premise). If you weaken them, then the counters become too strong.
A standard party benefits from having Compulsions easier to resist, and thus no longer have to waste resources as much on the normal counters.
The fix has repercussions that go beyond what Pathfinder can control (adventures and campaign settings made prior to the Pathfinder rules).
I think we are disagreeing on the fundamental level, so further discussion beyond this is pretty much out.
If Command, Greater is a weaker effect then Dominate Person, and Command, Greater allows for a round-by-round saving throw, why doesn't Dominate Person offer a round by round saving throw? If this was considered to be essential to balancing a weaker effect, then why isn't it present in the description of Dominate Person?
There's some of the history of D&D to consider and the uses spells may have in story-building. What good are enchantments that have round by round saving throws when it comes to classic stories in the game and in fairy tales? How can a vampires have a fearsome domination power if everybody is making a save every 6 seconds? How can an enchantress or secret society of enchanters manipulate kings and viziers? How can a greedy enchanter be behind a crime spree without ever getting his hands dirty if all of the rogues under his sway are making Wills saves every 6 seconds?
There's some of the history of D&D to consider and the uses spells may have in story-building. What good are enchantments that have round by round saving throws when it comes to classic stories in the game and in fairy tales? How can a vampires have a fearsome domination power if everybody is making a save every 6 seconds? How can an enchantress or secret society of enchanters manipulate kings and viziers? How can a greedy enchanter be behind a crime spree without ever getting his hands dirty if all of the rogues under his sway are making Wills saves every 6 seconds?
And there you have it. The dominate effect, in all of it's forms, is about flipping the side of a character, PC or NPC, from Team PC to Team Monster, or vice versa. The command effect, however, is a far weaker effect, weak enough to be considered a first level spell, and so allows limited selection of 5 options, and at the first level version lasts only a single round. The 5th level greater version allows a resave, because command lasts at most 2 minutes, and allows the caster to request obviously self destructive options, if they are within the list of 5 options.
If the dominate effect ceases to be able to reliably allow for open ended control, because of a resave mechanic, then it ceases to be the cannonical fantasy dominate effect.
Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions
against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus.
Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out.
This already provides an out, on any given action, allowing a resave. But once the action is locked in, it would not be a dominate effect if the dominated individual could shake off that particular action.
Perhaps, if this really needs limiting, a control limit mechanic like clerics and wizards have on undead?
You can only control 1 HD per caster level or something like that.
There's some of the history of D&D to consider and the uses spells may have in story-building. What good are enchantments that have round by round saving throws when it comes to classic stories in the game and in fairy tales? How can a vampires have a fearsome domination power if everybody is making a save every 6 seconds? How can an enchantress or secret society of enchanters manipulate kings and viziers? How can a greedy enchanter be behind a crime spree without ever getting his hands dirty if all of the rogues under his sway are making Wills saves every 6 seconds?
I already addressed that earlier: I'm only advocating that people get round-by-round saves against these effects whenever they are in combat.
As far as I'm concerned, you can keep someone Dominated or Charmed all the live long day - just make sure that you keep them out of combat, lest you run the risk of your Enchantment effect being broken.
If the dominate effect ceases to be able to reliably allow for open ended control, because of a resave mechanic, then it ceases to be the cannonical fantasy dominate effect.
Please note that I am only advocating a round-by-round save should be allowed for characters that are under the influence of Enchantment [Compulsion] effects while they are in combat. This would allow you to use these effect as written in the fantasy world at large, but would make using these spells within combat situations more problematic.
This already provides an out, on any given action, allowing a resave. But once the action is locked in, it would not be a dominate effect if the dominated individual could shake off that particular action.
Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions
against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus.
Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out.
1) When you're dealing with a Fighter that has a 95% chance of failing the initial save, giving them an order to hack their party to pieces and forcing them to make a saving throw that they have an 85% chance of failing is still a pretty good gamble to take.
2) You can also use Dominate Person/Monster to replicate the effect of a Command, Greater spell - the difference being that it won't have any duration, and the affected character is pretty much out of combat once they are enspelled.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position.
The situations I've described are not "superficially similar". And I'm not overstating your position. You can scream about me putting up straw men all day, but the fact of the matter is that your logic - that spells that provide a "hard counter" to other spell effects that are sufficient to provide balance those effects - doesn't work very well when implemented anywhere in the game. It's simply bad game design.
I already addressed that earlier: I'm only advocating that people get round-by-round saves against these effects whenever they are in combat.As far as I'm concerned, you can keep someone Dominated or Charmed all the live long day - just make sure that you keep them out of combat, lest you run the risk of your Enchantment effect being broken.
I do not think that is a particularly tenable distinction. What constitutes being in combat? If the enchanter gets the spell off in a surprise situation vs a lone PC (or multiple), is it in combat? Does it matter if it's in a dungeon or if the enchanter did it via a silent, stilled spell in a bar? Would the additional saves apply in any combat, so a dominated PC could pick fights as cheese to get more saves?
Too foggy, if you ask me.
Please note that I am only advocating a round-by-round save should be allowed for characters that are under the influence of Enchantment [Compulsion] effects while they are in combat. This would allow you to use these effect as written in the fantasy world at large, but would make using these spells within combat situations more problematic.
And I am of the opinion that for dominate to be dominate, it has to allow only 1 save per command.
1) When you're dealing with a Fighter that has a 95% chance of failing the initial save, giving them an order to hack their party to pieces and forcing them to make a saving throw that they have an 85% chance of failing is still a pretty good gamble to take.
2) You can also use Dominate Person/Monster to replicate the effect of a Command, Greater spell - the difference being that it won't have any duration, and the affected character is pretty much out of combat once they are enspelled.
I'd be okay with a cumulative +2 per each consecutive command given against a suject's nature, which allows for 85% at defend me, 75% at kill him, and 65% at desecrate his body, which is about what I expect from a canonical effect.
And you cannot duplicate command with dominate, as command allows the caster to specify an obviously self destructive action (drop or fall, and potentially approach or flee, depending on terrain), whereas dominate does not.
I do not think that is a particularly tenable distinction. What constitutes being in combat?
The way I would rule is that any time you're in a threatening situation involving other creatures where the GM declares that you need to roll Initiative, you'd be considered to be "in combat". So if say for example you had a Fighter that was Dominated and accidentally fell into a Pit Trap. The Fighter would probably take damage from the trap and would have to exert some effort to climb out of the pit, but it wouldn't allow him to make a saving throw against the effect.
If the enchanter gets the spell off in a surprise situation vs a lone PC (or multiple), is it in combat? Does it matter if it's in a dungeon or if the enchanter did it via a silent, stilled spell in a bar?
A Silent Stilled spell cast surreptitiously wouldn't classify as being in combat - no matter if it's being cast in a crowded bar or the shadows of a dungeon.
Would the additional saves apply in any combat, so a dominated PC could pick fights as cheese to get more saves?
This is something that my gaming group talked about, and we ultimately came to the conclusion that it would probably be best that Dominated characters receive the round-by-round saving throws anytime they are in a combat situation. But that being said, an Enchanter could give the Dominated character a standing order to refrain from engaging in combat that is not related to self-defense. But I am open to discussion and suggestions on this point, as we haven't really fleshed it out entirely.
And I am of the opinion that for dominate to be dominate, it has to allow only 1 save per command.
I'm not entirely resistant to this idea. But I'm afraid that doing this would allow Dominate to break too easily outside of combat. Whenever you're using a Dominated pawn to do recon for you or to represent you in a social situation, the chances are good that you're going to be giving them a lot of commands over a very short period of time, especially if you're giving the spell your full concentration or using Scrying to guide them along their appointed duties.
I'd be okay with a cumulative +2 per each consecutive command given against a subject's nature, which allows for 85% at defend me, 75% at kill him, and 65% at desecrate his body, which is about what I expect from a canonical effect.
And you cannot duplicate command with dominate, as command allows the caster to specify an obviously self destructive action (drop or fall, and potentially approach or flee, depending on terrain), whereas dominate does not.
I'm not entirely resistant to this idea either. But here's another quibble of mine regarding Dominate Person/Monster - what constitutes "against a subject's nature" or a "self-destructive command"? These have always been awfully vague terms that are subject to a great deal of interpretation from gaming table to gaming table.
If we were to go with this mechanic, we'd have to really sit down and clarify 1) how many Commands it costs to get someone to do something in combat on a round-by-round basis and 2) what these pieces of language really mean.
I'm not entirely resistant to this idea. But I'm afraid that doing this would allow Dominate to break too easily outside of combat. Whenever you're using a Dominated pawn to do recon for you or to represent you in a social situation, the chances are good that you're going to be giving them a lot of commands over a very short period of time, especially if you're giving the spell your full concentration or using Scrying to guide them along their appointed duties.
And per RAW, it would only be commands against the target's nature.
I'd be okay with a cumulative +2 per each consecutive command given against a subject's nature, which allows for 85% at defend me, 75% at kill him, and 65% at desecrate his body, which is about what I expect from a canonical effect.
I'm not entirely resistant to this idea either. But here's another quibble of mine regarding Dominate Person/Monster - what constitutes "against a subject's nature" or a "self-destructive command"? These have always been awfully vague terms that are subject to a great deal of interpretation from gaming table to gaming table.If we were to go with this mechanic, we'd have to really sit down and clarify 1) how many Commands it costs to get someone to do something in combat on a round-by-round basis and 2) what these pieces of language really mean.
Absolutely agreed. Dominate could coopt some of the Handle Animal mechanics, since that is an established system, with pretty clear and broad delineation in tricks. Dominate can be slightly open ended, so no special pushing mechanic would be involved. My basic take, and the way I have GMed dominate for my game table's telepath, is that it if would qualify as a different trick in Handle Animal, then it counts as a new command.
Absolutely agreed. Dominate could coopt some of the Handle Animal mechanics, since that is an established system, with pretty clear and broad delineation in tricks. Dominate can be slightly open ended, so no special pushing mechanic would be involved. My basic take, and the way I have GMed dominate for my game table's telepath, is that it if would qualify as a different trick in Handle Animal, then it counts as a new command.
I like the way that you quantify giving commands for the Dominate Person via the Handle Animal rules, but I still don't get the feeling that tying saves to commands is still entirely balanced. Granted, this makes it more difficult to use Dominated creatures tactically in some encounters, but you can still Dominate a Fighter relatively easily and give it one or two commands that - even if it is against its nature - can take the character out of combat altogether (maybe Down to disengage, and then either Stay, Perform, or maybe even work). I'm going to get together with my gaming group this weekend and kick this idea around with them and see if they prefer it to a saving throw every round, or if perhaps there is a "happy medium" between the two systems.
Again why should the fighter not be easy to dominate? the 50% success rate is generally saved for classes with "good" saves. On the balance they have 1/2 a chance at saving against something. People with "bad" saves generally get about 1/4 or less chance against the same thing. If you consider the save DCs and "average" save throws of the various classes using the "elite" array (which was supposed to be the most commonly used array) at various levels it always comes down to the "good" saves having about 50% chance and "bad" saves at 25%.
Again why should the fighter not be easy to dominate? the 50% success rate is generally saved for classes with "good" saves. On the balance they have 1/2 a chance at saving against something. People with "bad" saves generally get about 1/4 or less chance against the same thing. If you consider the save DCs and "average" save throws of the various classes using the "elite" array (which was supposed to be the most commonly used array) at various levels it always comes down to the "good" saves having about 50% chance and "bad" saves at 25%.
1) Most Enchantment [Compulsion] spells, "status effect" spells, and "Save-Or-Die" spells can instantly take a player out of combat and are only mitigated by a single saving throw (and perhaps a hard spell counter). This makes the outcomes of these spells very "swingy" and make it more difficult to run a challenging encounter without running the risk of a TPK.
2) These spells were originally formulated for 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D, where Fighters and other melee classes were given relatively high saving throws to compensate for their lack of magical abilities. A Fighter could be expected to pass their worst saving throws 50% of the time. In the context of that game, allowing a Fighter an initial save against the effect and then another save to break the effect if forced to do "something against the nature" made sense, as they had a very good chance of resisting the effect. This does not hold up at all under the current saving throw model, as they only have one decent saving throw.
3) Most other classes with poor Will saves either have class abilities or spells that help offset this weakness. Barbarians gain a nice bonus to their Will saves while raging, Paladins have access to Protection From Evil (a hard counter to all Enchantment [Compulsion] effects), and Rogues have access to Slippery Mind. Fighters only get a bonus to their Will Saves against Fear effects, and Rangers have to depend on their (usually) high WIS to help offset their low saving throw.
4) There is a lack of "hard counters" to these effects if you are not running a Grognard-Approved Big 4 party. Parties that have alternate spellcasters such as Druids or Bards face a distinct disadvantage to parties that have Clerics or Wizards as their primary spellcasters.
5) Anyone that is affected by these spells are effectively taken out of the game for the duration of the fight. Given how long some fights can last at higher levels, this means that some players may be out of the game from anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes (or more). These players are not having any fun while their character runs around the board trying to kill his friends or stands idly by eating his rations while his friends fight for their lives. They will either wander away from the gaming table and find something else to do, or they will end up distracting the rest of the players from the game at hand. Introducing a mechanic that allows them to resist the effect of the spell in combat keeps them engaged in the game and lets them get back into action after three to five rounds instead of 10 to 30 minutes. A Dominate Person spell may be a great way to enslave the Fighter, but it's also a great way to start an impromptu Halo Tournament.
6) Monster with poor Will saves are usually hosed by these spells and end up being used by the party as powerful weapons against their former allies. Much like "Save-Or-Die" and "status effects" spells, I get the distinct feeling that some players may recognize that these effects are imbalanced but are unwilling to admit this. They are far more liable to run the risk that their GM will not use these spells to their full effect against them, lest they kill everyone off and ruin the game. However, they are not compelled to follow any similar restrictions and don't have to worry about pulling their punches - they can "play to win" and use these effects against their enemies like a bludgeon without having to worry about ruining the game for everyone. And if you're capable of casting these spells, there's almost no way that they can effect you - the minor inconvenience that may arise from having this spell used against you is nothing compared to the potential profit that arises from Dominating a member of Team Monster.
2) These spells were originally formulated for 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D, where Fighters and other melee classes were given relatively high saving throws to compensate for their lack of magical abilities. A Fighter could be expected to pass their worst saving throws 50% of the time.
Not really.
A Warriors worst saving throws were passed 20% of the time at 1st level, and as much as 75% of the time at 17th or higher. But this is at base level without opponents skill taken in to effect.
The only real benefit for warriors were the speed at which their saving throws improved, and the better values at the end. But they paid for this by being decidedly worse than any other class at the low levels.