Most monsters with low will saves at high level are usually immune to compulsion effects either because they are undead, constructs, or have some sort of spell immunity throw magic circle of protection, or straight magical immunity... there is a reason Enchantment is one of the easiest schools of magic to drop for a specialist, and this is it.
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.
My position was that only Enchantments should work this way. You took this statement and applied it to other areas and said "look how stupid this is, this is why Enchantments working this way are stupid".
That's the exact definition of a strawman argument, which is why your argument... that it would work stupid in other areas, doesn't counter the reason why it will work well in this area.
..
I think I can no longer discuss this with you, as it stands. There appears to be some emotional investment in this for you, as you attribute emotions to my posts that don't exist (I'm not "screaming" about anything, this is a discussion, not a rant). Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe you just get excited when discussing your opinion.
I'm not, however, trying to be mean or angry or anything other than pointing out a logical fallacy.
You'll need to come up with better, more sound reasons for why this needs to be changed in the core rules game other than what you have given.
That being said... I wouldn't mind seeing this kind of change in a homebrew game that didn't include magic on the PC side as much. This would be similar to not minding a game where create water and such spells were made more difficult to cast and rare in a Desert/Survival campaign setting.
As this is a discussion about core rules, however, I still do not see the need for a change, where said change would alter too many things beyond Pathfinder (adventure paths, campaign books, etc).
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.
There was no "opponent skill" factor be taken into consideration in 2nd Edition D&D. All you would need to do is look at the type of effect you were being subject to (things like Breath Weapon, Spell, Poison, etc.), cross reference your class and level, and find out what you needed to roll on a D20 in order to successfully save against the effect. You had a flat DC check to save against a certain group of effects. There weren't ANY adjustments to the DC based on either the level of the caster or any feats that might have increased their DC. In fact, the only things that would modify your saving throw were:
1) Bonuses gained from a DEX, CON, or WIS of 15 or higher.
2) Bonuses gained from magical items.
So if I had a 10th level Fighter in 2nd Edition AD&D, and you had a 20th level Wizard casting a Dominate spell at me, I'd look at Table 60 on Page 101 in the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook and find out that my DC to resist the effect was a whopping 11. If I have a Ring of Protection +3, then then drops down to a DC of 8. So I'd have a 60% of resisting the spell, and if given a command that was against my nature, I'd have a 70% chance of breaking the enchantment.
That's WAY better then the 25% chance that Fighters are currently looking at when resisting spells cast by Wizards of their own level.
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.
Fighters started out with poor saving throws at lower levels because they were actually a more powerful class when compared to low-level Wizards and Clerics. When everyone has a level 3 character, your shtick of "running over and beating that guy with your mace" is still a really good option. But once people start throwing around Blade Barriers and Meteor Swarms, it doesn't work out so well. That's why Fighters got their saving throws bumped up more often then any other class and why they were so damned good once they reached 17th level (at which point they basically had to roll a 1 to fail most saves). By the time a Fighter would be encountering enemies that could Dominate them, they had a 60% to 70% chance of resisting the effect.
Unfortunately, their saving throws got over-nerfed in the transition to 3.5 because of the problems that would occur if they multi-classed or took levels in Prestige Classes. So now we're left with a Fighter that fails their Will save 75% of the time, whereas they used to pass their Will saves 60% of the time.
My position was that only Enchantments should work this way. You took this statement and applied it to other areas and said "look how stupid this is, this is why Enchantments working this way are stupid".
You'll need to come up with better, more sound reasons for why this needs to be changed in the core rules game other than what you have given.
That being said... I wouldn't mind seeing this kind of change in a homebrew game that didn't include magic on the PC side as much. This would be similar to not minding a game where create water and such spells were made more difficult to cast and rare in a Desert/Survival campaign setting.
As this is a discussion about core rules, however, I still do not see the need for a change, where said change would alter too many things beyond Pathfinder (adventure paths, campaign books, etc).
Look about 4 posts back for 6 good reasons why the current rules for adjudicating Enchantment [Compulsion] spells don't work.
And I still don't believe that your suggestion - nerfing the power of the hard counters to Enchantment [Compulsion] - would do anything to resolve any of those issues.
Most monsters with low will saves at high level are usually immune to compulsion effects either because they are undead, constructs, or have some sort of spell immunity throw magic circle of protection, or straight magical immunity... there is a reason Enchantment is one of the easiest schools of magic to drop for a specialist, and this is it.
Dropping Enchantment from your school list is one of the worst things a Wizard can do. Most of the highest CR monsters in the Monster Manual are either Outsiders or Aberrations, but there's still a number of high CR monsters of other types out there that can be enslaved relatively easily. Dinosaurs, Basilisks, Elder Elementals, Giants, Lycanthropes, and Hydras can all be enslaved relatively easily. And even if you are facing a monster with a good Will save (Aberration, Dragon, Fey, Monstrous Humanoid, or Outsider types), you'll probably still have a decent shot of enslaving them if you take Spell Focus [Enchantment] and Greater Spell Focus [Enchantment] and have access to items that jack up your spell DCs. They probably won't have any items to boost their save DCs (and if they do, they will belong to you as soon as you kill them), and you'll end up overcoming their Will in the end.
But where you really hit pay dirt is when you account for the fact that you'll be encountering a lot of monsters with low CRs that have been given class levels or templates to become higher CR creatures. However, any monster that starts off with a low Will save will more then likely have to take class levels in a non-spellcasting class that also deprives them of good Will saves in order to achieve maximum synergy between their racial abilities and their class abilities. Otherwise, you end up with rather ineffective opponents like Troll Sorcerers running around. They may be more resistant to Enchantment [Compulsion] effects, but they don't really pose much of a threat to the party because they have racial HD that don't stack with their spellcasting levels.
|
1e AD&D fighter/ranger/paladin saves (17th level):
Paralyzation, Poison, Death Magic: 3 (90% chance of success)
Petrification, Polymorph: 4 (85%)
Rod, Staff, Wand: 5 (80%)
Breath Weapon: 4 (85%)
Spells: 6 (75%)
Note: The "Spell" save only applies to spells that do not cause death, paralyzation, a poison effect, petrification or polymorph (i.e. enchantment), but even against enchantment, they saved 75% of the time.
Fighters 13th level and higher (right about when SoD and SoS spells got VERY nasty in AD&D) had the best saves of any class, across the board.
Conclusion: Don't nerf the spells, give the fighters and rangers their saves back.
Spells also altered the save DC though in 2nd ed. Many spells penalized the save throw, and some spells didn't allow a save at all.
|
Spells also altered the save DC though in 2nd ed. Many spells penalized the save throw, and some spells didn't allow a save at all.
Aside from 'Hold Person' and a couple of others that gave a slight penalty (e.g. -2 to the save) for targeting a single opponent, I don't remember it being very common. Also, spells that didn't allow any save at all had, to my knowledge, some other "requirement" such as "automatically kills everyone with HPs under 60" but didn't have an effect on someone who, for example, had 60+ HPs. And there spells weren't very common, either.
And I still don't believe that your suggestion - nerfing the power of the hard counters to Enchantment [Compulsion] - would do anything to resolve any of those issues.
That's not what I said.
I'm saying if you nerf compulsions, you should nerf the hard counters at the same time, otherwise compulsions become too weak overall.
If you just nerf the counters, it'll just make compulsions even stronger, which is the opposite of what you want, and what I said.
Look about 4 posts back for 6 good reasons why the current rules for adjudicating Enchantment [Compulsion] spells don't work.
Fair enough. I was just responding to the posts you aimed towards me, which only dealt with that one argument.
I'll reply to your main issue post separately to avoid making this post confusing.
1) ... 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"...
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. ...
3) Most other classes with poor Will saves either have class abilities or spells that help offset this weakness. ...
4) There is a lack of "hard counters" to these effects if you are not running a Grognard-Approved Big 4 party. ...
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 ... 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.
Okay, so these are the main thrusts of your argument against allowing Compulsions from being an all-or-nothing situation.
Here's my thoughts:
1. 3e D&D is swingy. I'm of the opinion that it was designed that way on purpose.
This is more a matter of taste than mechanics, although that doesn't invalidate the argument if your intention is to change the game to a more palatable gameplay.
There is a danger going down this route though, and it's already started with save or die spells. If you check ENworld (a fairly large repository of gamers), one of the biggest problems people have with 4e is that combat plays out too predictably. I think the comment was that there was a certain point during the encounter that the players just knew they were going to win, but had to play out 5-10 more rounds of combat whittling down the hitpoints.
While I can see some benefit to reducing the swinginess in the game, so that players can have a say in their chance at success... high level gameplay is the one place where swinginess should come into effect. The players and their characters should have enough experience to know what they are facing, or know that they should research what they are facing.
Also, high levels are the times where players can respond to a TPK (contingency spells, allies to help raise them, raising their own dead, etc).
Low level swinginess sucks because there's almost nothing you can do in response. A CR 1 or lower Orc with a Greataxe can get lucky and roll enough damage to kill literally any first level character. Swinginess like this is just "unfun" and warrants fixes (like boosted starting HP, etc).
This is where people will have vastly differing opinions. I'm not sure what the intent of the Pathfinder designers is... but I doubt it's to mimic the 4e style.
.
2. What might have been true in previous editions, doesn't really matter much in a new edition.
I'd rather discuss the mechanics of the current classes and save systems and options available, than try and figure out if the 3e designers even intended for the Fighter to remain the same from previous editions.
.
3. The bonuses for anyone other than the Paladin are pretty weak. Fighters can compete by simply having the feats to spare buying an Iron Will and now Greater Iron Will. While other classes need to spend their character feats on combat stuff, the Fighter isn't in the same situation.
This begs the question though... who is supposed to be weak to these spells? The Fighter already saves most of the time against Fort effects, so it's not like he has the whole magic system against him.
But if the low Will save classes are strong against these spells, and the high Will save classes are even stronger... who are these spells meant to be used against? Animal companions?
The spell system is all about a rock-paper-scissors situation with the three saves, rays and spell resistance. If no one is weak against something, sometimes, then why would these kinds of spells have been created in the first place? Why not just use a different spell (possibly a ray, bypassing the save entirely).
.
4. Since we are talking about Core Rules, I still don't see this as a valid point.
If you change the gameplay to not allow even potions of protection from evil as an option, then yes... you will need to change the game to accommodate that difference you've created.
This is no different than a group that plays without a healer. They have to respond by doing things like buying potions, and grabbing UMD to use curative wands, rods and raise dead staves. It also means a portion of their wealth needs to be spent on it, and it takes planning.
It also means tactics need to change... as there's few last minute big heals mid-combat, so retreating and regrouping becomes a seriously considered tactic.
A group without a Wizard or Cleric to counter certain all or nothing spells will have to change their tactics in a similar way. The game can already handle not having the hard counters as specific class abilities.
.
5. I'm starting to dislike this particular argument. I don't know any way to say this without being negative, but players that can't keep attention when their player is taken out... that isn't interested in the outcome beyond what their character has done... there's no other word for it, that's a poor player.
Or at least one who isn't that engrossed with the game to begin with.
Honestly speaking, should we be catering to poor player habits? Should we be shaping the game so that players who are only half interested in playing, or who are selfish about their gaming experience (only care about what happens to their character, not the group or the outcome of events)?
What happens if such a character dies from poor tactics, or a series of bad rolls and he simply died from hitpoint damage? Will the player wander off and play Halo? It's not just Compulsions that would cause this problem... maybe the fix should be on the player side.
I'm sorry.. this just seems incredibly rude to me. I'd be upset if this happened in a game I participated in.
.
6. For a 9th level spell, it had better be good. Your alternatives are things like Gate, Imprisonment or even Wish.
Remember, that anything against the creature's nature requires another save...
And can you imagine how upset that creature might be when something on it's side comes over with a Magic Circle of Protection (or even just a break enchantment)? Now you have a pissed off baddie as well as the regular encounter.
I've played an Enchanter in a realtime game (Everquest 2). When your domination spell wears off, or gets broken, the fight usually ends up going very badly, very fast. If you can't neutralize the creature against right away (magic circle), you are usually as good as dead, unless you aren't facing that tough an encounter when it happens and can handle both at once normally.
There are drawbacks and caveats to this particular situation. Facing any intelligent opponent would be large risk.
.
In the end, since this really just boils down to a matter of taste (swinginess vs non-swinginess, what classes should be good at which saves, etc), I doubt anything I said or can say will really sway more than a fine point or two.
Maybe it'll help us agree to disagree though. As I said in the past, it would be a fine rule in a low-magic game, where the counters weren't so commonly accessible. I just don't think it'll be an appropriate change for the Pathfinder core rules.
|
|
5. I'm starting to dislike this particular argument. I don't know any way to say this without being negative, but players that can't keep attention when their player is taken out... that isn't interested in the outcome beyond what their character has done... there's no other word for it, that's a poor player.
Or at least one who isn't that engrossed with the game to begin with.Honestly speaking, should we be catering to poor player habits? Should we be shaping the game so that players who are only half interested in playing, or who are selfish about their gaming experience (only care about what happens to their character, not the group or the outcome of events)?
What happens if such a character dies from poor tactics, or a series of bad rolls and he simply died from hitpoint damage? Will the player wander off and play Halo? It's not just Compulsions that would cause this problem... maybe the fix should be on the player side.
I'm sorry.. this just seems incredibly rude to me. I'd be upset if this happened in a game I participated in.
Thank you. This has been a big gripe to me all throughout these SOD/SOE threads. While I can do a degree understand the mindset of "It means my character's been invalidated by one bad roll," (understand it, yes, but still don't agree with it) this sort of mindset has really stuck in my craw since it was brought up.
In the gaming group I play in, it would be considered extremely rude for a player to just walk off and not pay at least some attention to what's going on because they were taken out of gameplay, no matter if it was a single-roll fail or massive HP damage in the eighth round of a twenty round combat... hell, if nothing else to root for the party to win.
And besides, since casting Flesh to Stone, Dispel Magic, Heal, or using Stone Salve are all standard actions that can be taken within the midst of combat, there's actually more chance for a character to recover from those 'instant-out' SOE effects in combat than there is for a character that's died/fallen unconscious from damage < 0 HP... so what happens when the healer dispels the domination/compulsion effect on the PC whose player is doing other things?
Don't forget the wonderful Break Enchantment spell or protection from evil (again) cast after the fact still frees the target from the spell cast at him for duration...
Then if the big bad caster wants to dispel the protection from evil he must check against his spell to (first since it's a higher level spell) meaning he may dispel the problem himself.
Also leaving the table isn't that smart... the DM may have you dominated... but it's still your character... if the DM misinterprets commands when the players dominate something this is your chance to do the same. A little cleverness on the dominated players part maybe the difference between TPK and the party winning.
|
|
Well said Kaisoku. On all points.
I would like to add that I quite like the "swingyness" of higher level play due to many of the reasons given by you (and others).
I don't want completely linear, perfectly balanced and totally predictable power progression for any and all classes, spells or otherwise.
This may sound odd, but I don't think that everything needs to balance or to scale into the higher levels.
(Some things? Maybe.)
I would like to add my reason(s) for keeping the "swingyness" in the game, be it from SOD spells, one failed save and you are out, or other things being discussed in this and other threads like it.
Since people are using computer games as examples to illustrate their point, allow me to use my own experience with a game, to explain.
Bought Oblivion. Was quite impressed with it for a while. The wheels came off for me once I realized that no matter how good my character became, how many levels I achieved, how many cool new items I found, it really didn't matter. The game just "leveled" up the monsters to match my new power level. I understand why the game designers did it, but it totally diminished the game experience for me. What was the point of striving to increase my "power" when everything would be rebalanced the minute I increased in level? Go to the graveyard as a low level adventurer? Fight a level appropriate zombie. Skip the graveyard until I was higher level? No zombie there now. Fight the now level appropriate wraith. It should have been the zombie or the wraith all along. If the zombie had been there? Fine with me. Had the wraith been there all along? I would have ran away and come back later when I was better able to take it on. I would have achieved a greater sense of accomplishment this way. Rewarding me for those levels I had gained. Instead...
To get to my point. If everything scales. If everything is totally balanced. If everything is predictable. If there is no increase in risk at higher levels, then levels become irrelevant and meaningless. No risk, no reward.
You are just a character with the same stats, but higher. It all just becomes a formula. Character begins with power level X. Character works hard to level up. Character is now X+10. Character is no better or worse versus his opponents because they use the same "balanced" formulas and everything scales "appropriately".
What is the point then? At 1st level I can do 10 dmg per round and make my will save X% of the time. At 20th level I can do 100 dmg per round, but my opponent has 10 times the HP now. And I still make my will save X% of the time. Wow. That's exciting. I'm sure glad I spent all that time leveling up my character.
You could "fix" every spell in the rules but you would lose the flavor and excitement of many of those spells.
That is not the game I want to play.
I don't want this to happen to the PFRPG rules.
Totally predictable and balanced = boring in my books.
I want death to stalk my character(s). When, and if, we prevail...so much the sweeter is the victory.
Keep the "swingyness" and you keep it interesting IMO.
Cheers
And I still don't believe that your suggestion - nerfing the power of the hard counters to Enchantment [Compulsion] - would do anything to resolve any of those issues.That's not what I said.
I'm saying if you nerf compulsions, you should nerf the hard counters at the same time, otherwise compulsions become too weak overall.
I'm loathe to remove the hard counter that Protection From Evil currently provides, but how about this compromise: why not change Protection From Evil from complete immunity to Dominate [Compulsion] effects and instead allow it to grant a +8 bonus to save against these effects? That's what they did with Mind Blank in the PRPG (which used to grant immunity to all mind-affecting spells).
And if Protection From Evil is cast on a character that has already been Dominated (or otherwise mind-controlled), they get to immediately make a Recovery Save to resist the effect.
1e AD&D fighter/ranger/paladin saves (17th level):
Paralyzation, Poison, Death Magic: 3 (90% chance of success)
Petrification, Polymorph: 4 (85%)
Rod, Staff, Wand: 5 (80%)
Breath Weapon: 4 (85%)
Spells: 6 (75%)Note: The "Spell" save only applies to spells that do not cause death, paralyzation, a poison effect, petrification or polymorph (i.e. enchantment), but even against enchantment, they saved 75% of the time.
Fighters 13th level and higher (right about when SoD and SoS spells got VERY nasty in AD&D) had the best saves of any class, across the board.
Conclusion: Don't nerf the spells, give the fighters and rangers their saves back.
Let's say that we wanted to buff Fighter saving throws instead of giving Recovery Saves to people that are under the control of a Dominate effect.
Here are the suggestions that I've heard regarding modifying the saving throws of Fighters and Ranger:
1) Change the Fighter's Bravery ability to grant a bonus to all Will saves and give the Ranger some kind of comparable ability.
2) Give the Fighter and the Ranger good Will saving throws.
3) Give the Fighter and the Ranger a "medium" Will save.
Which one of these options would you prefer? And do you believe that we run the risk of unbalancing the game if we gave Fighters and Rangers good Will Saves?
Okay, so these are the main thrusts of your argument against allowing Compulsions from being an all-or-nothing situation.
Here's my thoughts:
1. 3e D&D is swingy. I'm of the opinion that it was designed that way on purpose.
This is more a matter of taste than mechanics, although that doesn't invalidate the argument if your intention is to change the game to a more palatable gameplay.
I believe that Save-Or-Die spells are bad because they give players the chance to instantly take out opponents with much greater HP totals very quickly, and I believe that Enchantment [Compulsion] spells are bad because they take players out of combat (and hence out of the game). Removing players from the game temporarily is not good game design - your players should be as active and engaged in the game as much as possible. You may say that it is a matter of taste - I still believe that it is in fact a matter of bad game mechanics. Balancing these "swingy" spells on bad saving throw mechanics that allow some classes to have instant success and some classes to have instant failure doesn't do anything but exacerbate an already bad situation.
There is a danger going down this route though, and it's already started with save or die spells. If you check ENworld (a fairly large repository of gamers), one of the biggest problems people have with 4e is that combat plays out too predictably. I think the comment was that there was a certain point during the encounter that the players just knew they were going to win, but had to play out 5-10 more rounds of combat whittling down the hitpoints.
You can have a balanced game that isn't boring. D&D 4E has a lot of good ideas regarding balance, but they went overboard with them. I'm not in favor of nerfing Save-Or-Die or Enchantments as much as 4E, but I still don't think they are where they need to be in terms of balance in PRPG. I think spells like Finger Of Death and Disintegrate are fine they way they are right now - they do tremendous amounts of damage to characters that fail their save, and they are not likely to survive. But Enchantment [Compulsion] effects are still pretty badly mitigated, and they haven't been addressed at all yet.
While I can see some benefit to reducing the swinginess in the game, so that players can have a say in their chance at success... can have a say in their chance at success... high level gameplay is the one place where swinginess should come into effect. The players and their characters should have enough experience to know what they are facing, or know that they should research what they are facing.
Also, high levels are the times where players can respond to a TPK (contingency spells, allies to help raise them, raising their own dead, etc).Low level swinginess sucks because there's almost nothing you can do in response. A CR 1 or lower Orc with a Greataxe can get lucky and roll enough damage to kill literally any first level character. Swinginess like this is just "unfun" and warrants fixes (like boosted starting HP, etc).
Unfortunately, the way the Enchantment [Compulsion] spells are set up right now, you see them effects that come into play as low as 5th level (Suggestion). Enchantment [Compulsion] spells aren't a high level problem - they start appearing in the game at lower levels and only get worse as time goes on and the spells get more powerful and Caster DCs start shooting through the roof. You don't see instant death spells like Disintegrate and Finger of Death until higher levels, but you do have to contend with Suggestion and Status effects fairly regularly before you even hit 10th level.
2. What might have been true in previous editions, doesn't really matter much in a new edition.
I'd rather discuss the mechanics of the current classes and save systems and options available, than try and figure out if the 3e designers even intended for the Fighter to remain the same from previous editions.
I don't think houstonderek would agree with you on that point, and neither would I. Looking at how game mechanics were implemented in previous editions and comparing them to the current edition allows us to compare and contrast both rulesets and gain a better idea of why some mechanics have worked between editions and why some have not. Fighters - who used to be totally awesome - are now a Tier 5 class. One of the reasons why they stink now is because they have bad saving throws. Granted, I don't think we have the option of simply reverting back to the way things used to be and give them Monk-like saving throws, but the insight that this comparison provides at least gives us something to work with.
The bonuses for anyone other than the Paladin are pretty weak. Fighters can compete by simply having the feats to spare buying an Iron Will and now Greater Iron Will. While other classes need to spend their character feats on combat stuff, the Fighter isn't in the same situation.
This begs the question though... who is supposed to be weak to these spells? The Fighter already saves most of the time against Fort effects, so it's not like he has the whole magic system against him.
But if the low Will save classes are strong against these spells, and the high Will save classes are even stronger... who are these spells meant to be used against? Animal companions?
That's why I'm advocating Recovery Saves instead of increasing saving throws. If we just give Fighters and Rangers good Will saves, then the Dominate spells really do become useless. They won't work on anyone at all but Animal Companions. But if you give them Recovery Saves, they are still effected, but they have some chance of getting back into the fight at some point. Even if you give them a cumulative +1 bonus on their Will save every round to resist the effects of a Dominate spell, the average Fighter is still going to be looking at 3 to 5 rounds of being Dominated before they can break free of the effect.
This is no different than a group that plays without a healer. They have to respond by doing things like buying potions, and grabbing UMD to use curative wands, rods and raise dead staves. It also means a portion of their wealth needs to be spent on it, and it takes planning.
It also means tactics need to change... as there's few last minute big heals mid-combat, so retreating and regrouping becomes a seriously considered tactic.
A group without a Wizard or Cleric to counter certain all or nothing spells will have to change their tactics in a similar way. The game can already handle not having the hard counters as specific class abilities.
It is different. Most people won't (rightly) play this game without a Healer. But that's fine, because we have all kinds of Healers now. We have Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and Bards. And you can even play the "Healer" from the Minatures Handbook if you're feeling particularly masochistic. But you have a choice of healers. You don't NEED to have one kind of healer, even if some kinds are better then others.
But you still really do need a Wizard and a Cleric (maybe a Paladin) in the party to counter against Domination [Compulsion] effects. Druids and Bards can cast Dispel Magic, but that's not really going to cut the mustard (for reasons I have explained elsewhere in this thread).
The current rules really don't allow for party diversity because it makes classes that fulfill the same role inherently inferior to other classes that fill that role (and every other role in the game, for that matter). This is why Druids are probably a Tier 2 class in PRPG and Bards are still a Tier 4 class - Wizards and Clerics are still the kings of the hill in PRPG.
I'm starting to dislike this particular argument. I don't know any way to say this without being negative, but players that can't keep attention when their player is taken out... that isn't interested in the outcome beyond what their character has done... there's no other word for it, that's a poor player. Or at least one who isn't that engrossed with the game to begin with.
You may not like this argument, but it's still a part of the game. Even the most attentive, engaging player is going to either going to start reading a book, playing their PSP, or wandering off to do something else after watching their friends fight against Team Monster for 10 minutes while their character either hacks up their friends, run away from the battle, or sit stock still round after round. God forbid if you have a longer battle!
If you want to sit there and watch your friends fight for 10 minutes while you twiddle your thumbs, be my guest, but there's no need to call those that choose to do something else with their Enchantment-spawned hockey timeout. free time "bad players".
For a 9th level spell, it had better be good. Your alternatives are things like Gate, Imprisonment or even Wish.
Remember, that anything against the creature's nature requires another save...And can you imagine how upset that creature might be when something on it's side comes over with a Magic Circle of Protection (or even just a break enchantment)? Now you have a pissed off baddie as well as the regular encounter.
1) If you have a Recovery Save mechanic in the game, the Will Saves for most Fighters are going to be so low compared to your spell DC that your 9th level spell is still going to be taking the Fighters out of the game for at least 3 to 5 rounds.
2) And even with the +2 bonus to save for "commands against their nature", with an 85% chance to fail their save, the Dominated Fighters will probably be hacking at the rest of the party for those 3 to 5 rounds - and doing quite a bit of damage to boot.
3) Gate is more then likely going to get nerfed and have the "calling Solars and Pit Fiends" component removed (thank god), so you'll have to rely on Unicorns from Summon Spells if you want Magical Circles.
4) Break Enchantment takes 10 minutes to cast and is not a proper counter to Enchantment spells when people are trying to kill you.
In the end, since this really just boils down to a matter of taste (swinginess vs non-swinginess, what classes should be good at which saves, etc), I doubt anything I said or can say will really sway more than a fine point or two.
Maybe it'll help us agree to disagree though. As I said in the past, it would be a fine rule in a low-magic game, where the counters weren't so commonly accessible. I just don't think it'll be an appropriate change for the Pathfinder core rules.
I believe that there are quite a few people that believe that these kinds of rules need to be implemented in order to reduce the class imbalances between spellcasters and non-spellcasters. I believe that unless Paizo does something to address this problem in their rules, a lot of players that don't care for 4E but don't like the caster dominance of 3E are simply going to find another game to play. For all of the luster of Golarion, there's no point to adopt Pathfinder if the class Tiers will remain intact and non-spellcasters are basically little more then Cohorts that get a full share of the treasure.
Don't forget the wonderful Break Enchantment spell or protection from evil (again) cast after the fact still frees the target from the spell cast at him for duration...
Break Enchantment takes 10 minutes to cast. It is NOT suitable for combat situations at all.
Then if the big bad caster wants to dispel the protection from evil he must check against his spell to (first since it's a higher level spell) meaning he may dispel the problem himself.
Which is why enemy casters never cast Dominate Person on people in parties with either Wizards or Clerics. The whole issue of "being Dominated" only comes up when you have primary spellcasters that are not Wizards or Clerics. If you have a Wizard or a Cleric in your party, you'll never even have to worry about this scenario because Dominate spells can be countered by Protection from Evil - a 1st level spell - and it's a complete waste of an action.
Also leaving the table isn't that smart... the DM may have you dominated... but it's still your character... if the DM misinterprets commands when the players dominate something this is your chance to do the same. A little cleverness on the dominated players part maybe the difference between TPK and the party winning.
If your DM is allowing you to "misinterpret" Domination commands at your gaming table as much as you make it out to be, then I completely understand why you have no problem with this spell. But most genius level spellcasters are going to be pretty clear about phrasing their commands, and most DMs that are more interested in running their encounters then arguing over the semantics and interpretation of an order given to a Dominated character.
Back in 3E I played a Purple Dragon Knight (anybody remember them?) in a twelfth level campaign. We ended up in a fight with a respectably powered dragon, who knew Otto's Irresistible Dance. Now, I understand that ID has a relatively short duration compared to many of the spells we're talking about right now, but it took me completely out of combat for five rounds. I didn't mind at all, had tons of fun roleplaying the effect while the dragon tore the crap outta my party, and me. Could it have been a TPK? Definitely, we got lucky with some poor saves on the dragon's part. Would I have been sad? No, it's actually one of my favorite gaming experiences.
I have been charmed and even dominated before, too. In my group, we continue to play our characters through these effects. I don't know why anyone would want to stop playing just because their character suddenly changed sides. I enjoy these opportunities for roleplaying, not to mention the chance to tear into my buddies for once. :)
I would like to add that I quite like the "swingyness" of higher level play due to many of the reasons given by you (and others).
I don't want completely linear, perfectly balanced and totally predictable power progression for any and all classes, spells or otherwise.
I don't think that allowing Recovery Saves every round against Enchantment [Compulsion] effects is particularly predictable. In fact, I would submit that it makes the game even LESS predictable for most players. Instead of sitting there waiting for the combat to end or someone to cast a counterspell on them, they get to roll the dice and takes their chances every round to see if the manage to finally break free of the effect.
Granted, we have a mathematical average that we're going to be looking at, but sometimes you're going to beat the odds (and roll a 20 on your saving throw as soon as you start hacking up your friends), and sometimes you're going to lose big time (and turn all of your friends into Longpork Chop Sandwiches). But in general, the Recovery Save keeps people at the table waiting for their chance to get back into combat. And that's a good thing.
This may sound odd, but I don't think that everything needs to balance or to scale into the higher levels.
Balance != level scaling.
Bought Oblivion. Was quite impressed with it for a while. The wheels came off for me once I realized that no matter how good my character became, how many levels I achieved, how many cool new items I found, it really didn't matter. The game just "leveled" up the monsters to match my new power level. I understand why the game designers did it, but it totally diminished the game experience for me. What was the point of striving to increase my "power" when everything would be rebalanced the minute I increased in level? Go to the graveyard as a low level adventurer? Fight a level appropriate zombie. Skip the graveyard until I was higher level? No zombie there now. Fight the now level appropriate wraith. It should have been the zombie or the wraith all along. If the zombie had been there? Fine with me. Had the wraith been there all along? I would have ran away and come back later when I was better able to take it on. I would have achieved a greater sense of accomplishment this way. Rewarding me for those levels I had gained. Instead...
To get to my point. If everything scales. If everything is totally balanced. If everything is predictable. If there is no increase in risk at higher...
Once again - balance is not equal to scaling. The concepts are related, but not identical. And level scaling can be a very good way to increase the difficulty level of an encounter, so long as it is handled with more consistency and finesse then video games like Oblivion and Final Fantasy Tactics. Level scaling is also the reason why your GM can take an Orc or an Elemental and throw some class levels on it and make it a viable threat to your party.
But as much as you might imply otherwise, the rule changes that I am suggesting would not cause the PRPG to stoop to the level of these two very sad video games. Giving people Recovery Saves isn't even in the same ballpark as suggesting that every peasant in the country should be equal to a CR 10 or 15 or 20 encounter, which is a pretty ridiculous idea and why I didn't play Oblivion in the first place.
And once again - I'm not saying that Dominate spells should be nerfed into the ground, or that they should be removed from the game. I DO believe that they should still be effective - just not as effective as they are now.
However, I am a bit puzzled as to why so many people tell me that we should just give Fighters and Rangers good Will saves and should forgo the Recovery Save idea. All this will do is put Fighters and Rangers on the same footing as Wizards and Clerics in terms of making their Will saves. This will practically guarantee that they'll snap out of any Dominate spell that makes them act against their nature - assuming that the spell lands at all in the first place.
Any spell that you change to allow a save each round should at least get a bonus to the DC after that initial save. Otherwise, even if you manage to make the fighter chop-suey his buddies, it's only going to last a couple of rounds at best. That makes the spell lame.
Don't forget the wonderful Break Enchantment spell or protection from evil (again) cast after the fact still frees the target from the spell cast at him for duration...Break Enchantment takes 10 minutes to cast. It is NOT suitable for combat situations at all.
Then if the big bad caster wants to dispel the protection from evil he must check against his spell to (first since it's a higher level spell) meaning he may dispel the problem himself.Which is why enemy casters never cast Dominate Person on people in parties with either Wizards or Clerics. The whole issue of "being Dominated" only comes up when you have primary spellcasters that are not Wizards or Clerics. If you have a Wizard or a Cleric in your party, you'll never even have to worry about this scenario because Dominate spells can be countered by Protection from Evil - a 1st level spell - and it's a complete waste of an action.
Also leaving the table isn't that smart... the DM may have you dominated... but it's still your character... if the DM misinterprets commands when the players dominate something this is your chance to do the same. A little cleverness on the dominated players part maybe the difference between TPK and the party winning.If your DM is allowing you to "misinterpret" Domination commands at your gaming table as much as you make it out to be, then I completely understand why you have no problem with this spell. But most genius level spellcasters are going to be pretty clear about phrasing their commands, and most DMs that are more interested in running their encounters then arguing over the semantics and interpretation of an order given to a Dominated character.
It's a turn about is fair play issue, DM in question did it regularly to us.
Even if the main caster in the group isn't a wizard or cleric avoiding domination isn't that hard and dispel magic is on every caster's spell list as a third level spell.
PoE is also a paladin spell.
Break enchantment is a 1 minute spell not 10 minute, and you could also just dominate your dominated friend (they can choose to fail this save).
Finally it seems most the issue here is only that fighters are the main target of these spells and even then only if there isn't a main spellchucker that can buff him with PoE in the morning and he doesn't have a means of doing so himself.
In which case I would have to say maybe this is (still) supposed to be the fighter's weak point.
You don't NEED to have one kind of healer, even if some kinds are better then others.
You've misunderstood what I was saying.
You can play this game... with no healer at all. Not even a Bard, or a Monk self healing.
You do so the same way you'd cover your spellcasting weakness: Potions and Use Magic Device (for scrolls, wands and staves).
.
The problem isn't that you can't play this way.. it's that you can't play certain character builds (no one using UMD and thus no protection spells) up to high levels.
Even if you didn't take those options (putting skillpoints into a skill that would GIVE you protection) in your build, you can pick them up while leveling now that you know it might be an issue! This isn't metagame thinking... this is something a normal intelligent person would do when faced with this problem.
If anything... Pathfinder makes this even easier to do, you don't even need a class that has the skill on their class list. Pick up the Skill Focus feat and you are as good at doing it as a classed person.
.
If you want to play in a game where you don't need magic at all, then you are playing the wrong game, simple as that. Magic is integral to this game's design.
I'd rather have the Spellcaster feel important because he's needed to help against certain spells and enemies. I'd rather not reduce him into "the nuke guy" (like they are in most video games and MMO's).
.
Saying all this... if you've seen my other posts in this forum, you'll see that I'm for nerfing some aspects of the caster. Full Round casting times for certain spells, and movement + attack or more interupt options for melee are the things I've been advocating.
Equalize the spellcaster and warrior by making spellcasting itself harder to pull off... not by weakening a spell so that it's useless, and gets put to the side for another spell that hadn't been nerfed.
Any spell that you change to allow a save each round should at least get a bonus to the DC after that initial save. Otherwise, even if you manage to make the fighter chop-suey his buddies, it's only going to last a couple of rounds at best. That makes the spell lame.
Yeah, that was part of my original proposal - a +1 cumulative bonus per round. TreeLynx's suggestion allowed for a +2 cumulative bonus per command given that was "against the character's nature". But without a cumulative bonus, a Fighter with a 95% chance to fail their save is never going to shake off the effect of the spell.
Even if the main caster in the group isn't a wizard or cleric avoiding domination isn't that hard and dispel magic is on every caster's spell list as a third level spell.
Dispel Magic is a 3rd Level Spell for Bards and a 4th Level Spell for Druids. They are "soft counters" as opposed to a "hard counter" like Protection From Evil - they are not guaranteed to work. You may have to cast the spell a few times before it sticks. In a game where "economy of actions" is of paramount importance, this doesn't work out very well for Bards and Druids. They have to give up valuable 3rd and 4th level spells to use their counters, while Wizards and Druids can just blow a relatively useless 1st level spell.
Break enchantment is a 1 minute spell not 10 minute, and you could also just dominate your dominated friend (they can choose to fail this save).
I apologize. It takes 1 minute (10 rounds) to cast Break Enchantment. 10 rounds of trying not to get hacked to pieces.
And I supposed you could Dominate your Dominated friend, but we have no clear rules about the effect. How would this work? Does a new Dominate destroy the old one? Do you have to fight for control with the other person Dominating the target for control?
Finally it seems most the issue here is only that fighters are the main target of these spells and even then only if there isn't a main spellchucker that can buff him with PoE in the morning and he doesn't have a means of doing so himself.In which case I would have to say maybe this is (still) supposed to be the fighter's weak point.
Unfortunately, this isn't so much a "weak point" right now as it is an "I WIN" button for spellcasters. Even WITH the recovery save, the time that it will take for Fighters and other creatures with low Will saves to break free of Enchantments still will be quite substantial. But you need to implement a recovery save - or some other kind of mechanic - for it to go from "totally bones Fighters" to "weak point". And giving Fighters good Will saves isn't the solution - that would actually nerf Enchantment [Compulsion] spells right into the ground and throw off the saving throw matrices for characters that multi-class or take Prestige Classes.
balance is not equal to scaling.I did not claim they were. I had an or in there somewhere I believe.
I admit it was poor sentence structure and easy to misunderstand.
I should stop posting in the middle of the night. :P
I posted 10 minutes instead of 10 round earlier... I completely understand.
You've misunderstood what I was saying.
You can play this game... with no healer at all. Not even a Bard, or a Monk self healing.
You do so the same way you'd cover your spellcasting weakness: Potions and Use Magic Device (for scrolls, wands and staves).
You could do that, but I wouldn't recommend it. And it's not really feasible outside of campaign worlds where there are Magic Shops on every corner (Forgotten Realms, Eberron) and you can guzzle down healing potions like they were Coca-Cola.
If you want to play in a game where you don't need magic at all, then you are playing the wrong game, simple as that. Magic is integral to this game's design.
Did I say that I wanted to play in a game where you don't need magic at all? Of course not. It certainly doesn't mesh with my earlier statement about "needing a healer", for one. The problem is that magical power is hands-down the most potent force in the game right now, and characters and monsters that are non-spellcasters need some extra help defending against magical effects as the game stands right now.
I'd rather have the Spellcaster feel important because he's needed to help against certain spells and enemies. I'd rather not reduce him into "the nuke guy" (like they are in most video games and MMO's).
You want the spellcaster to "feel important"? Spellcasters are the most powerful characters in the game right now! Classes that don't have spells are mostly superfluous at higher levels. There's a reason why the primary spellcasters are considered Tier 1 and 2 characters and Fighters and Barbarians are Tier 5 characters. It's hard to compete with characters that can warp reality and call down the power of the gods when your main schtick is "beating on things with your mace".
Saying all this... if you've seen my other posts in this forum, you'll see that I'm for nerfing some aspects of the caster. Full Round casting times for certain spells, and movement + attack or more interupt options for melee are the things I've been advocating.
These are good ideas, but they aren't perfect. Once you get to higher levels, Fighters have difficulty interrupting casting because 1) the casters are usually flying 2) they have access to Displacement effects and 3) casters have access to Wall spells that can stop both melee and ranged Fighetrs in their tracks.
And these ideas don't address the problems with the spells themselves. Once the spells land, you're still boned.
Equalize the spellcaster and warrior by making spellcasting itself harder to pull off... not by weakening a spell so that it's useless, and gets put to the side for another spell that hadn't been nerfed.
Allowing Recovery Saves won't "weaken spells so that they are useless". They will finally bring some much-needed balance to spell effects that currently take characters completely out of combat and help keep players engaged in the game.
I know that many people are resistant to the idea of nerfing spells or spellcasters, but Fighters are not going to magically "get better" on their own. Spellcasters need to get nerfed, and Fighters need to get buffed. We have to flank this problem from both ends, or else we'll end up with more weaksauce Fighters.
|
And I supposed you could Dominate your Dominated friend, but we have no clear rules about the effect. How would this work? Does a new Dominate destroy the old one? Do you have to fight for control with the other person Dominating the target for control?
You could have opposed caster level checks, or opposed Diplomacy/Charisma checks, though in the latter case I'd maybe allow a bonus to the target's usual buddies, to reflect their past camaraderie.
(Of course, that assumes they actually do get along well with their party in the first place!)
If you can cast a spell like Imprisonment and take someone out of combat, why bother using a spell that could fail the next round even after a success?
A high level Fighter is capable of doing an average of 400 damage on a full attack. You know what that kills in one round? Anything in the SRD short of a Tarrasque.
He can do 200 damage on a single charge too.
The Fighter has to overcome defenses and get through hurdles to accomplish this. However, he can do this an unlimited times per day.
The Wizard, by comparison, has a limited number of spells per day. He has to overcome defenses, and get through hurdles. He has to get around Spell Resistance, high saves and save retries (slippery mind, etc), and a host of spell defenses, ranging from protection from evil and resist energy, all the way up to mind blank and spell turning.
Use magic to defeat magic defenses. Once the defenses are out of the picture, guess who wins? Not the 80 damage spell.. but the 400 damage full attack.
What's even better? Combine them! Use magic to hold the target in place somehow, or get the Fighter in close, and then he can do his full attack. Best of both worlds!
Any spell that you change to allow a save each round should at least get a bonus to the DC after that initial save. Otherwise, even if you manage to make the fighter chop-suey his buddies, it's only going to last a couple of rounds at best. That makes the spell lame.Yeah, that was part of my original proposal - a +1 cumulative bonus per round. TreeLynx's suggestion allowed for a +2 cumulative bonus per command given that was "against the character's nature". But without a cumulative bonus, a Fighter with a 95% chance to fail their save is never going to shake off the effect of the spell.
He's not agreeing with you. He's saying that if you nerf the spell like this, then give the SPELLCASTER a bonus to his DC, so that it will land more frequently.
(General response post now, not responding to anyone in particular).
High level combat is all about "all or nothing" effects. Whether it's a full attack from a fighter killing most creatures in one round, or if it's a Wizard's spell that means death on success.
This binary combat theme is what makes tactics more important at higher levels. It also makes things different from the lower levels.
Here's how I look at the different power levels:
1st through 6th or so: Low power. The randomness of the dice rules combat. Even if you are supposed to be really good at something, a high roll by someone else can match you.
This is where combat is more "realistic", and feels more like combat in movies and books. Lower hitpoints means death is only a couple hits away too (if not a single hit).
7th through 12th or so: Medium Power. This is where people can start to excel at their focus. The dice become about equal with your bonuses, meaning you have more control over what happens in combat, but things can still sway one way or another.
This is where the unreal starts to set in. People coming back to life, dragons being killed, people flying through the air. High-wire action.
13th and up: High Power. This is where the dice no longer really matter. By 20th level, someone's focus is going to overwhelm the average. If you are good at something, you are likely to succeed, if you are bad at something, then faced with someone who is good at it, you'll likely fail.
This is where strategy and tactics become far more important than the rolls in combat. Setting up the stage to defeat your opponent is where most of your efforts are spent.
And if you fail? True Resurrection from an ally, or a host of other contingencies. This is Elminster saying "Don't tick me off too much, or I'll hunt down every one of your clones and make sure you stay dead" stuff.
.
One can disagree with the finer points of the above, but that's the gist of it.
So what does that mean?
It means someone who wants to play a certain type of game, might get disappointed when they progress through the different levels for their character.
In my opinion, making High level play more like lower level play... takes something away from the game.
What some might call a failure in the system, I call a different style of gaming. Fighters being a slave to Will save magic at higher levels is fine in my world, because by that level, it's not about hoping to roll well next round, etc. It's about having the right protective magic up, or having an ally with the right cure handy.
.
I can understand the want to play a game that isn't like that though. Where the heroes are still human in skill and power.
That's why I've been interested in playing an E6 game. Level stops at 6, so your "numbers" don't bloat over the dice rolls, screwing with the math so that you are resorting to rock/paper/scissors strategy of higher levels.
You still get abilities and powers... you do new "stuff". Just not with a +50 to attack, etc.
This concept works for any level where you feel you would like to slow the game's bloat. Some people play E8 or E10 instead (allowing more higher magic, but still limiting "all or nothing" spells in the game).
To me, this would be far preferable than to go through every high level spell and try and hammer the math to work with it.
Because if you really look at it... it's not just Dominate Person/Monster that's causing problems with the math. It's everything, from save or dies, to massive full attack damage, to +10 enhancement worth of bonuses on weapons and armor causing 60 ACs and +50 attack bonus.
It's +60 skill checks, making things like Concentration checks a "never fail".
.
My point is that the way compulsions and other effects work are for a reason: it promotes a style of gameplay.
I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't write out that style of gameplay.
He's not agreeing with you. He's saying that if you nerf the spell like this, then give the SPELLCASTER a bonus to his DC, so that it will land more frequently.Any spell that you change to allow a save each round should at least get a bonus to the DC after that initial save. Otherwise, even if you manage to make the fighter chop-suey his buddies, it's only going to last a couple of rounds at best. That makes the spell lame.Yeah, that was part of my original proposal - a +1 cumulative bonus per round. TreeLynx's suggestion allowed for a +2 cumulative bonus per command given that was "against the character's nature". But without a cumulative bonus, a Fighter with a 95% chance to fail their save is never going to shake off the effect of the spell.
I mis-read his post. My bad. No, I don't think giving Fighers a -1 bonus to their save would be good at all - it would negate the whole reason behind recovery saves. You may as well just keep it as-is.
The forum ate my last post, so I'll be brief.
If you can cast a spell like Imprisonment and take someone out of combat, why bother using a spell that could fail the next round even after a success?
ALL spells that take players out of combat for the duration of the combat need to be looked at.
A high level Fighter is capable of doing an average of 400 damage on a full attack. You know what that kills in one round? Anything in the SRD short of a Tarrasque. He can do 200 damage on a single charge too.
Good luck doing this on a target that has access to Displacement, Flight, Wind Walls, Walls of Force, Antipathy, or Teleport.
The Fighter has to overcome defenses and get through hurdles to accomplish this. However, he can do this an unlimited times per day.
The Wizard, by comparison, has a limited number of spells per day. He has to overcome defenses, and get through hurdles. He has to get around Spell Resistance, high saves and save retries (slippery mind, etc), and a host of spell defenses, ranging from protection from evil and resist energy, all the way up to mind blank and spell turning.
Wizards may have a limited number of spells per day, but their spells are game-changing both in and out of combat. They can do more then "beat people with stick" or "shoot sticks at people". And the paltry "obstacles" that they face can be easily overcome by proper equipment and feat selection.
Use magic to defeat magic defenses. Once the defenses are out of the picture, guess who wins? Not the 80 damage spell.. but the 400 damage full attack.
Unfortunately, the Fighter is wholly dependent on the Wizard to defeat magical defenses. The Fighter needs the Wizard - the Wizard doesn't need the Fighter.
What some might call a failure in the system, I call a different style of gaming. Fighters being a slave to Will save magic at higher levels is fine in my world, because by that level, it's not about hoping to roll well next round, etc. It's about having the right protective magic up, or having an ally with the right cure handy.
Are you seriously suggesting that a particular class should be wholly dependent on the presence and abilities of another class in order to remain viable at higher levels? And that players should expect to have their characters enslaved if they don't play in a Grognard-Approved, Big 4 game?
Don't you think that's a little unbalanced?
And yet this seems to be a common sentiment in this thread. At least you're willing to do away with the pretense of "admitting there is a problem" and then lamenting the fact that there will never, ever be a solution to this issue. You're keeping it real - you want to marginalize an entire class to maintain the "purity" of your game.
I'm almost 100% convinced at this point that Fighters are still going to be stuck in Tier 5 by the time this playtest is over. Hell, given all of the extra abilities that everyone else is getting, they may end up consigned to Tier 6.
That's why I've been interested in playing an E6 game. Level stops at 6, so your "numbers" don't bloat over the dice rolls, screwing with the math so that you are resorting to rock/paper/scissors strategy of higher levels.
You know, when you have to chop 14 levels off of your game system to maintain class balance, that indicates that there's a problem with the game system. It's not a difference in style - the game is just broken at higher levels. And given the fact that they never playtested 3.5 past 10th level, I can't say that I'm really surprised by this.
To me, this would be far preferable than to go through every high level spell and try and hammer the math to work with it.
Because if you really look at it... it's not just Dominate Person/Monster that's causing problems with the math. It's everything, from save or dies, to massive full attack damage, to +10 enhancement worth of bonuses on weapons and armor causing 60 ACs and +50 attack bonus. It's +60 skill checks, making things like Concentration checks a "never fail".
No. It's not that complicated. You give Fighters a class ability that either gives them a bonus to their Will Saves like Barbarians or allows for a second saving throw like Rogues, you allow characters to make Recovery Saves against effects that take them out of combat, and you turn Save or Die spells into ones that do straight HP damage so players can't instantly kill Boss Monsters.
Actually the dominate a dominated person is covered in the rules, in the case of contradictory instructions it's an opposed CHA check to see which the dominated creature listens too.
PG 157:
"Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical
effects
that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as a spell that removes the subject’s ability to act. Mental controls that don’t remove the recipient’s ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conf licting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one
the creature obeys."
Actually the dominate a dominated person is covered in the rules, in the case of contradictory instructions it's an opposed CHA check to see which the dominated creature listens too.
PG 157:
"Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical
effects
that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as a spell that removes the subject’s ability to act. Mental controls that don’t remove the recipient’s ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conf licting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one
the creature obeys."
So you still end up only being able to take meaningful action if your party Wizard is very charismatic. Still, this is a better option for the Bard then Dispel Magic...
Heck predominate... make them waste the action in combat... ;D
|
|
(General response post now, not responding to anyone in particular).
High level combat is all about "all or nothing" effects. Whether it's a full attack from a fighter killing most creatures in one round, or if it's a Wizard's spell that means death on success.
This binary combat theme is what makes tactics more important at higher levels. It also makes things different from the lower levels.
Here's how I look at the different power levels:
1st through 6th or so: Low power. The randomness of the dice rules combat. Even if you are supposed to be really good at something, a high roll by someone else can match you.
This is where combat is more "realistic", and feels more like combat in movies and books. Lower hitpoints means death is only a couple hits away too (if not a single hit).7th through 12th or so: Medium Power. This is where people can start to excel at their focus. The dice become about equal with your bonuses, meaning you have more control over what happens in combat, but things can still sway one way or another.
This is where the unreal starts to set in. People coming back to life, dragons being killed, people flying through the air. High-wire action.13th and up: High Power. This is where the dice no longer really matter. By 20th level, someone's focus is going to overwhelm the average. If you are good at something, you are likely to succeed, if you are bad at something, then faced with someone who is good at it, you'll likely fail.
This is where strategy and tactics become far more important than the rolls in combat. Setting up the stage to defeat your opponent is where most of your efforts are spent.
And if you fail? True Resurrection from an ally, or a host of other contingencies. This is Elminster saying "Don't tick me off too much, or I'll hunt down every one of your clones and make sure you stay dead" stuff..
One can disagree with the finer points of the above, but that's the gist of it.
So what does that mean?
It means someone who wants to play a certain type...
I have to say that I agree with pretty much everything Sueki has posted on this thread, and I have to disagree with your assessment that high-level play *should* be "swingy".
First of all, the more "swinginess" you have in your game as a result of the "math", the more it stresses the importance of "metagaming" over role-playing and also Initiative. We ran a test session of five high-level spellcasters (wizards), and every time it came down to who won the initiative. The rest was trivial, as this is what happened each time: the character who won the Initiative cast the same spells in the same order (Time Stop, Mordenkainen's Disjunction and Wail of the Banshee/Meteor Swarm). Boring, huh? If it had been a playtest of the melee types vs. spellcasters, it still would have come down to the single factor: Initiative (and, naturally, if any of the melee types roll a natural 20 or not).
As I noted, high-level play in 3E impacts the game in two ways (in my experience):
1) It encourages "metagaming" over role-playing, as players strive to protect their PCs. A fighter might refuse to enter melee until the spellcasters have used "buffs" on him to enable him to *survive* and to do his *job*. Often the combats resembles a boardgame, in which tactical cunning and knowledge of the rules (and how to abuse them) is more important than anything else.
2) It encourages players not to get too attached to their PCs, as they know that in most combats the fate of their characters is determined by a single roll. The fighter enters melee without any regard to his safety (as he is kind of *EXPECTED* to do, right?), and if he dies, the player might just as well roll up a new character (or dig out one of the "backup" PCs from his character folder). "Buffs" or magic items are not a "must", but this tends to lead to more PC deaths.
Note that this is how I've perceived even veteran D&D players behaving -- guys who were really good role-players back in AD&D tend to shout to spellcasters: "I'm *NOT* getting my guy killed, so you'd better cast 'Death Ward' and 'Mind Blank' on me, or I'm withdrawing out of this dungeon!".
|
|
I wished to add that while I think some degree of "metagaming" will always be part of role-playing, 3E/PF high-level play encourages it in a *negative* sense. Many Indie RPGs (for example, 'Polaris' and 'Dogs in the Vineyard') encourage "metagaming" via brilliant game mechanics in ways that actually benefit role-playing and have a positive impact on the story. In 3E and PF, the "metagaming" in combat is an accidental by-product of the "skewed" math, and quite often results in breaking the 'Suspension of Disbelief' and hurting role-playing. If you don't "metagame", you are "penalized" for it. Ergo, the more you "metagame", the "smarter" and "better" you play.
I'm not ashamed to admit that I do it myself, too. I remember one instance in which a chance encounter (before a major battle against an epic-level BBEG) with a vampire barbarian resulted in my fighter (who won the initiative) retreating to the rear of the party and saying to the cleric: "That guy will drink me dry of blood if I charge him, so unless you are going to use your powers I suggest we teleport out of here!". I soon realized that I had acted "out of character" just because I knew that I couldn't bring the vampire down by charging him, and his Full Attack would have left me with so many Negative Levels that we should have aborted the whole mission then and there. Here's what happened: the cleric used Greater Turning to blast the vampire to ashes. So I actually made a very smart decision, but nevertheless the others commented how badly I had role-played that encounter. And they were right -- my guy should have *never* retreated in that situation (or maybe I should have played him a bit differently for the past 10 years?).
Another example about the importance of Initiative:
I play a cleric in a high-level campaign, and some months ago we ran into an evil adventuring party in the Underdark (the battle took place in a cave). The other PCs charged at the enemy, but the enemy cleric beat me in Initiative, and cast a Blade Barrier in front of me (max. range for him -- at least he couldn't cast it where I was standing). This separated me from the other PCs, and after failing to Dispel it (rolled badly, and I had only picked one 'Dispel Magic' in favor of more "buffs") I spent the rest of the combat using Total Defense-action each round! Just because everyone was out of range for my spells, I couldn't heal or use any "buffs", which almost led to a TPK, to boot (of course, I could have just run as the last PC dropped). If I had tried forcing my way through it, I would have died (even the party wizard has more HPs!). Yeah, surely was fun...
As I've written before, it seems that the "ideal" situation in D&D is a group of the 'Big 4' that always use "smart" tactics and act in perfect "harmony" to "offset" the penalties. In essence: character immersion will be secondary to tactical play and "winning". For example, the spellcasters always make sure that everyone will get "buffs" and items that remove their "weaknesses" -- at least via potions, scrolls or items (which they create themselves, if they cannot be bought or found as treasure). They also make sure they have enough "counters" for every situation. Only then can your fighters and rogues and rangers "freely" act according to their role in the group. I think it's quite sad.
The thing is, it's not just about ability damage or level loss or the fact that you can't hit most monsters without "buffs" -- the whole math behind the game *RELIES* on the fact that every group has access to spells or items that grant them a certain number of bonuses. If you don't the GM needs to constantly adjust monster stats to reflect this. Also, some spells easily "lock up" the whole situation, and result in a hard encounter easily turning into a lethal, or "unfair" one (Forbiddance, Blade Barrier, Time Stop, Maze, and so on).
If PF would implement the 'Save Ends'-mechanic from 4E, and revise the base saving throw modifiers *and* also make the bonuses from Feats scale better, I think it would lessen the effect of "metagaming" and reliance on magic *dramatically*.
Lately, the term "meta-gaming" has been bandied about a lot. I don't think people are using it correctly.
Meta-gaming is, quite simply, to use "out of game" knowledge that your character wouldn't know, to your advantage in-game.
Clearly, people's characters must be monumentally stupid if the things they've done are being called "meta-gaming".
.
The Fighter vs Vampire example. If the Fighter knows that the vampire can drink their blood, and he hasn't been given any protection against that, then it's a normal character response to not rush in and let the thing wail on him.
Now, if the Fighter didn't know it was a Vampire, or didn't know vampires drank blood and could kill you that way.. then yeah, you used out-of-game knowledge. But if you are fighting an Epic Level boss... I'm assuming your Fighter has been around a while and should know these things by now. Vampires are fairly low CR (not Epic only), so the Fighter has likely heard or even experienced them for quite a while now.
________________
With regards to the "uselessness" of Fighters at higher levels, or "Initiative is everything".
Stop playing in a vaccuum.
If every situation the party faces allows the Wizard a week and a half to study his opponent, spend all sorts of cash and experience (pre-Pathfinder) and devise any tailor-made spell he wants, then yeah... he's going to jump into combat casting the same spell sequence, hoping to get the initiative.
That, to me, is some pretty boring campaign though (IMO... YMMV).
My experience with high level play is that the Wizard doesn't always have the right tool on hand: he has to fight more than one encounter in a row, reinforcements come, unknown forces or abilities appearing mid-encounter, etc.
He relies on his teammates because he can't do everything himself, and has only so many actions per round. He also has a limited supply of power.
In my experience, the non-spellcasters have been needed for the simple fact that casters can't do everything, at every moment. It's a group effort... hell, the simple reason to have a non-caster around is because they can do their "thing" all day long without limitation. Casters bank on that, and use their abilities to help make it so the non-casters can perform.
You know.. as a team.
If PF would implement the 'Save Ends'-mechanic from 4E, and revise the base saving throw modifiers *and* also make the bonuses from Feats scale better, I think it would lessen the effect of "metagaming" and reliance on magic *dramatically*.
This has been a running theme I've been seeing now:
- Give every poor will save class a better save against will effects.
- Reduce the "all-or-nothing" of high level spells.
- Give recovery saves for all or nothing spells.
...
4th Edition has all of those. Decent saves for everyone, and every spell that has a complete "take you out of combat" effect has a recovery check (basically at 50%) meaning they only last a couple rounds at most.
I hate it when people just say "Go play 4e"... but seriously, have you guys checked it out at all yet? I'm not being a jerk here... I'm serious. The changes they made to the game are extremely similar to the overhaul suggestions you've been making here.
If you don't like the high level of 3e, and suggest changing it into basically what 4e has... then why not just play 4e directly? It'd save a lot of time. Just slap the Pathfinder skill system onto the 4e game, and you've practically got what you are looking for.
I have to disagree with your assessment that high-level play *should* be "swingy".
High level combat isn't swingy. The term swingy is used to indicate that someone who is very good at his thing, can still fail horribly due to a wild roll on the dice.
This is the opposite of what happens at high levels.
At high levels, the dice have very little effect to the outcome. Meaning, if you have the bonuses, you are going to be successful. The game isn't about rolling well, it's about having the right tactic and defense, and being able to change tactics when things go bad.
.
What you are asking for is more swinginess at higher levels.
..
Please note that I'm not arguing about whether or not there should be swinginess at higher levels in this post.
I'm just trying to make sure we keep are terms correct here. We don't want things to get confused.
If you want a good roll of the dice to mean more at higher levels... if you want your Fighter to succeed against an effect because he can roll the dice, not because of all or nothing tactics, then you are advocating for more swinginess at higher levels.
I'm not ashamed to admit that I do it myself, too. I remember one instance in which a chance encounter (before a major battle against an epic-level BBEG) with a vampire barbarian resulted in my fighter (who won the initiative) retreating to the rear of the party and saying to the cleric: "That guy will drink me dry of blood if I charge him, so unless you are going to use your powers I suggest we teleport out of here!". I soon realized that I had acted "out of character" just because I knew that I couldn't bring the vampire down by charging him, and his Full Attack would have left me with so many Negative Levels that we should have aborted the whole mission then and there. Here's what happened: the cleric used Greater Turning to blast the vampire to ashes. So I actually made a very smart decision, but nevertheless the others commented how badly I had role-played that encounter. And they were right -- my guy should have *never* retreated in that situation (or maybe I should have played him a bit differently for the past 10 years?).
I think your blame of metagaming here is completely misplaced. Suppose that you were facing something else and concluded that you could have charged it and done well, pinning it down and defeating it without being too battered? That would have been metagaming as well, based on the context in which you are using the term. The difference? The results.
In the case you presented, you acted out of character based on your metagame knowledge (though I might say that you failed to consider the metagame knowledge that, when energy drained, full strength is only a 4th level restoration spell away... something your cleric probably already had prepared or could prepare at next spell recovery time). In the case I present, you act in character based on metagame knowledge.The problem I see here isn't a little metagaming when it comes to estimating how nasty a foe is and reacting to that assessment. PCs will due stuff like that in character all the time, though based on necessarily less complete information. The problem is what and how you do it. Do you use it in an in-character fashion? Or do you use it to break character?
Ultimately, playing most RPGs are exercises in varying amounts of metagaming and making it all work in character. Your ability to estimate how likely a character is to succeed at any task is based on metagame information - his stats, abilities, skills, and so on.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
A couple points:
* Any game with die rolls will have some degree of swinginess. This chance of failure is what makes each encounter unique - you are unsure of the results. Nothing beats the suspense and excitement of the possibility of living or dying based on the result of one die roll.
* Enchantment/Compulsion spells are fine as they are. There are times when they are extremely effective and may seem unbalanced, and there are times when they are worthless because the opponent is ready for them. You could say this about most spells. Spell effectiveness all depends on the caster and the targets.
* If you choose to play an unbalanced party, you should expect encounters to be more difficult than they would be if you had a balanced party. It's the nature of the game. Even back in 1e, it was suggested that you have a balanced party (Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue) to have the best chance of surviving.
All sides in this thread have valid points, but at the end of the day, keeping things as they are still seems to be the best bet IMO.
|
|
If PF would implement the 'Save Ends'-mechanic from 4E, and revise the base saving throw modifiers *and* also make the bonuses from Feats scale better, I think it would lessen the effect of "metagaming" and reliance on magic *dramatically*.This has been a running theme I've been seeing now:
- Give every poor will save class a better save against will effects.
- Reduce the "all-or-nothing" of high level spells.
- Give recovery saves for all or nothing spells....
4th Edition has all of those. Decent saves for everyone, and every spell that has a complete "take you out of combat" effect has a recovery check (basically at 50%) meaning they only last a couple rounds at most.
I hate it when people just say "Go play 4e"... but seriously, have you guys checked it out at all yet? I'm not being a jerk here... I'm serious. The changes they made to the game are extremely similar to the overhaul suggestions you've been making here.
If you don't like the high level of 3e, and suggest changing it into basically what 4e has... then why not just play 4e directly? It'd save a lot of time. Just slap the Pathfinder skill system onto the 4e game, and you've practically got what you are looking for.
And I could be a jerk and say here that "If you like 3E high-level play, and think it's so wonderfully balanced, why not just keep playing 3E?". Because those rules already probably contain what you want to keep in the game, and you could just cut'n'paste the "juiciest" parts from PF RPG.
But I won't. Say it, I mean.
Yes, I've taken a look at 4E, and it takes things *too* far into the other end of the spectrum. For example, I just don't get (or like) the 4E encounter design, monster roles, self-healing and most of the "powers". What's left to like after that?
High level combat isn't swingy. The term swingy is used to indicate that someone who is very good at his thing, can still fail horribly due to a wild roll on the dice.
This is the opposite of what happens at high levels.
Actually, it describes what happens at high levels fairly accurately. The victor in a high level encounter is usually the person that strikes first. You can have any high-level character face off against any other high-level character, and it ultimately comes down to "Initiative wins". Will your Fighter be able to murder the high-level Wizard before he enslaves the Fighter with Dominate Monster? Only the Initiative roll knows!
Of course, the Wizard has a ton of advantages here that the Fighter does not - flight, invisbility, displacement, walls of force, wind walls, and the like, so even if the Fighter DOES roll higher on the initiative count, he's probably boned anyway. But that's why Wizards are Tier 1 and Fighters are - to borrow the term that Kaisoku used earlier in this thread - slaves.
At high levels, the dice have very little effect to the outcome. Meaning, if you have the bonuses, you are going to be successful. The game isn't about rolling well, it's about having the right tactic and defense, and being able to change tactics when things go bad.
One die has a TON of effect on the outcome - the D20 you use to roll initiative. Give spells some granularity and tone down the damage that Fighters and Rogues do, and I think you'd end up with some MUCH more interesting fights at higher levels. But right now... pretty predictible stuff.
A couple points:
* Any game with die rolls will have some degree of swinginess. This chance of failure is what makes each encounter unique - you are unsure of the results. Nothing beats the suspense and excitement of the possibility of living or dying based on the result of one die roll.
It is fine to have some degree of swing, but at higher levels, it gets somewhat problematic. But considering that 3.0 was never playtested past 10th level, this is not a surprise.
* Enchantment/Compulsion spells are fine as they are. There are times when they are extremely effective and may seem unbalanced, and there are times when they are worthless because the opponent is ready for them. You could say this about most spells. Spell effectiveness all depends on the caster and the targets.
This is true of almost all of the "Save-Or-Suck" spells, and I still believe that this should be remedied by Recovery Saves. Direct damage is not what makes Wizards a Tier 1 class - it's their ability to take people out of combat and control the battlefield with such impunity.
* If you choose to play an unbalanced party, you should expect encounters to be more difficult than they would be if you had a balanced party. It's the nature of the game. Even back in 1e, it was suggested that you have a balanced party (Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue) to have the best chance of surviving.
If I wanted to play a Big 4 party as mandated by Grognard Law, I'd be playing 4th Edition. As it stands, I'd like to be able to play in a party with a Druid and/or a Bard as primary casters without being put at a severe disadvantage against Enchantment/Charm spells.
|
|
I'm not ashamed to admit that I do it myself, too. I remember one instance in which a chance encounter (before a major battle against an epic-level BBEG) with a vampire barbarian resulted in my fighter (who won the initiative) retreating to the rear of the party and saying to the cleric: "That guy will drink me dry of blood if I charge him, so unless you are going to use your powers I suggest we teleport out of here!". I soon realized that I had acted "out of character" just because I knew that I couldn't bring the vampire down by charging him, and his Full Attack would have left me with so many Negative Levels that we should have aborted the whole mission then and there. Here's what happened: the cleric used Greater Turning to blast the vampire to ashes. So I actually made a very smart decision, but nevertheless the others commented how badly I had role-played that encounter. And they were right -- my guy should have *never* retreated in that situation (or maybe I should have played him a bit differently for the past 10 years?).
I think your blame of metagaming here is completely misplaced. Suppose that you were facing something else and concluded that you could have charged it and done well, pinning it down and defeating it without being too battered? That would have been metagaming as well, based on the context in which you are using the term. The difference? The results.
In the case you presented, you acted out of character based on your metagame knowledge (though I might say that you failed to consider the metagame knowledge that, when energy drained, full strength is only a 4th level restoration spell away... something your cleric probably already had prepared or could prepare at next spell recovery time). In the case I present, you act in character based on metagame knowledge.
The problem I see here isn't a little metagaming when it comes to estimating how nasty a foe is and reacting to that assessment. PCs will due stuff like that in character all...
I role-played the reaction "in character", but I was acting "out of character" in the sense that it was against the character's nature to act that way. I based my decision on the fact that the vampire clearly had nearly as much character levels (barbarian) as we had (I've learned to interpret the DM's NPC descriptions pretty well). Ergo, it would have been a suicide to attack him. That could be explained away as a seasoned fighter's "danger sense", but it was pretty clear to everyone why my PC acted that way. Also, sure, if I had known I could take him out with one blow, I might have done it. On the other hand, I prefer to stay away from energy-draining undead these days, if I can only help it (a lot of bad experiences with undead in 3E -- in AD&D we used a variant rule from the Dragon Magazine which "tweaked" level drain to XP drain).
I didn't fail to consider 'Restoration' -- if I remember correctly, I asked the player about it, and my reaction was triggered by his negative response (he can't scribe scrolls, so that wasn't an option either). Note: the cleric is a "heretic" who worships a very warlike aspect of a sun deity -- he usually spends most slots on "buffs" (especially on himself) and "direct damage" spells (Flame Strike and such), which is perfectly "in character" choices for him. We were at the gates of an enemy fortress in a hostile city, and the next "rest" was a full session away (and teleporting to the spot had been hard enough, so the other PCs wouldn't have agreed to teleport out of there on the first round). One negative level wouldn't have been that bad, but since we didn't have any "buffs" on (we were supposed to start casting them once we got in, but the vampire guard kind of took us by surprise) my fighter would probably lost too many in that fight.
To put it all shortly: I was using my player's knowledge of these things:
1) The DM's description clearly implied that it can't be killed with a single blow, and it has likely at least three attacks. It turned out I was correct -- the cleric barely succeeded in turning it.
2) This is a completely trivial encounter, and the vampire can easily hit my guy (AC 21) with all of its attacks.
3) The cleric cannot help my PC, and, what's even worse, the session has just started, which means that any negative levels from this encounter result in long-term consequences for my character.
|
|
A couple points:
* Any game with die rolls will have some degree of swinginess. This chance of failure is what makes each encounter unique - you are unsure of the results. Nothing beats the suspense and excitement of the possibility of living or dying based on the result of one die roll.
I like that there's tension and fear of losing, but I don't find it too much fun if I have to fear for my PC's life *EVERY* time I roll -- especially if I know that I'm unlikely to succeed. What's "unique" in that?
Like Sueki explained, "swinginess" in this context means that too much is dependant on a single roll. In high-level 3E play, this usually means that one bad roll results in someone dying or being taken out of combat -- occasionally even in a TPK. It's not an intended "feature" in D&D, as people often claim, but rather a result of poor high-level playtesting. To me it tells that the "math" behind the mechanics is not in balance, if you cannot predict how an average high-level average encounter usually turns out -- will it be a TPK? Or will the PCs just "breeze through" it? No one can know before the Initiative is rolled...
I find it absolutely irritating, both as a player and a DM, because it practically leaves very little room for error -- it's just all about chance (and tactics, of course, but in the end it comes to the rolls and the bonuses). It's not just about saving throws -- attack rolls are just as bad, because either the BBEG or any of the PCs might end the encounter with an anti-climatic, lucky crit inflicting 200+ damage with a single blow. Or if all of the PCs lose the initiative, it's very likely that the outcome of the encounter is clear before they get to act. That's all part of the "swinginess".
I'm not saying that there should be an "absolute" balance to the numbers (i.e. 10+ and you succeed in everything), but the fact is that at the moment it's so wildly unpredictable that it's hard to enjoy high-level play -- at least in the groups I play in.
(Also, not all games who use dice for resolution have "swinginess" -- to give you two examples: GURPS has a better Bell Curve in 3D6, and Dogs in the Vineyard uses a pool of dice you roll to "bet" individual dice each round so that you get to choose how you play your "hand" in each conflict)
|
|
I have to disagree with your assessment that high-level play *should* be "swingy".High level combat isn't swingy. The term swingy is used to indicate that someone who is very good at his thing, can still fail horribly due to a wild roll on the dice.
This is the opposite of what happens at high levels.
At high levels, the dice have very little effect to the outcome. Meaning, if you have the bonuses, you are going to be successful. The game isn't about rolling well, it's about having the right tactic and defense, and being able to change tactics when things go bad.
.
What you are asking for is more swinginess at higher levels.
..
Please note that I'm not arguing about whether or not there should be swinginess at higher levels in this post.
I'm just trying to make sure we keep are terms correct here. We don't want things to get confused.
If you want a good roll of the dice to mean more at higher levels... if you want your Fighter to succeed against an effect because he can roll the dice, not because of all or nothing tactics, then you are advocating for more swinginess at higher levels.
I beg to differ. As I and Sueki have explained above, the "swinginess" in high-level play results from a number of factors that cannot be predicted beforehand. Firstly, take a look at the Bell Curve for D20 -- it's not really reliable, isn't it? You have an even chance for rolling outstanding failure or success. And since you're usually required to roll 10+ (almost always regardless of your bonuses), it means that quite often you fail at least half the time, right? Secondly, as the attack and damage modifiers are so high, and spells have lethal effects, a single roll may practically end the fight. Perhaps the BBEG crits the only fighter in the group, killing him? Or the party cleric or wizard fails a critical saving throw? In both cases it more likely turns the tables. What's even worse, it pretty much always comes down to the initiative -- he who wins it, usually wins the battle (especially if he's a spellcaster). Thirdly, the effect of any "misjudgements" (a cleric "wasting" a round "buffing" himself instead of the fighter or a fighter missing with all of his attacks due to Power Attacking a high-AC enemy) is also magnified at high levels.
In essence, "swinginess" means that neither the players nor the DM (even when he's preparing the adventure) can predict how a particular level-appropriate encounter will turn out, even if the PCs are giving it their "best shot" (i.e. are employing "optimal" tactics and spells).
So dice *do* matter at high levels -- even more so than they do in low/mid-level play, because usually you might have very good bonuses on, say, one or two of your saving throws and your attacks, but even then you most often have at least 25% chance to fail at any roll. Furthermore, someone targeting your "weak points" might mean that you need to roll 19-20, or you'll bite the dust.
Did this clarify what I mean by "swinginess", and why I see it dominating high-level play?