|
I've played a lot of Saga edition, which uses Force Points that are almost exactly the same as action points, and they almost never get used at higher level except to aid attack rolls or skill checks. Even then, players usually had around 6-10 left when they leveled up even spending liberally at higher levels.I've found that to be that case in Eberron games, too (although Eberron action points are more limited in usefulness than UA action points). I'm the exception, though; I learned quickly that if I have action points, I might as well use them as fast as humanly possible!
I always find my crew saying they want to save some for the BBEG, then they don't use them during an encounter against the BBEG. Instead they horde them incase they need a boost which often never comes. They were always more likely to spend one on Mooks to activate some ability.
I've only ever DM'd games with FPs, I haven't played in them much, but its what I see recurring that interests me there. It makes sense to spend them whenever possible, but that doesn't seem to be the majority case. You're the exception, and a damned good one at that! If you don't use something you have then what use is it?
Fighters dish out tons of damage, round after round, all day long. A never-ending resource. They only bed down to spend the night resting when their non-renewable spellcaster companions decide it's time to replenish spells.
Not so; they have limited hp -- the fighter's spell slots, if you will -- and at high levels, a level-appropriate melee opponent can remove most or all of them in a couple of rounds. Yes, they can be replenished in less than 8 hours by a cleric buddy -- but in the absence of that buddy, 8 hours is nowhere near long enough (unlike for casters). In that respect, their daily allotment of activity is MORE limited than the mage's, not less.
Mages have a huge achilles heel: Low AC, Low HP, bad Fort/Ref saves, easy to kill with raw damage, easy to disrupt their only main class ability (spells), they run out of their only main class ability (spells). Oh wait, that's lots of achilles heels.
Low AC at high levels? Not in 3.5. Low hp? They got a big bump in Pathfinder, remember? (d6 + 1/lvl for favored class = d8 equivalent, hardly "low"). Bad Fort/Ref saves have been addressed above, especially with respect to hp boosts. Run out of spells? Much more slowly than the fighter runs out of hp. Easy to disrupt spells? By the rules as written, it's damn near impossible, unless you somehow get next to them despite their flying and tumbling, and they roll a "1" on that incredibly low DC Spellcraft check. In short, better than the fighter in almost all respects.
Histrionics aside, fighters are viable at high levels only in games in which the players and/or referee make a concerted effort (unconscious or otherwise) to tilt the field in their favor. (Bear in mind, the argument is not, and has never been, that fighters suck; it's that they're unable to keep up at higher levels, say 12th - 19th, which is a pretty broad range). Playing strictly by the rules as written, and playing the "bad guys" ruthlessly, resulted in the inescapable conclusion on the part of my group that the fighter can't really cut it as a PC class at those levels (until you hit 20th level in Pathfinder and acquire that nifty 1-shot kill critical capstone, at which point the game becomes Rocket Launcher Tag). Again, if the game is "nicer" to them by relaxing their restrictions or by using poor tactics on their enemies' part (like enemy wizards using evocation spells), this will be a lot less of a problem, or none at all.
You're the exception, and a damned good one at that! If you don't use something you have then what use is it?
Same with wands -- if I have one, I'm damn well going to use it or sell it. I'm not going to hang on to it forever, trying to keep it in mint condition!
|
|
You're the exception, and a damned good one at that! If you don't use something you have then what use is it?Same with wands -- if I have one, I'm damn well going to use it or sell it. I'm not going to hang on to it forever, trying to keep it in mint condition!
Darn right! When I DM I don't hand something to you for you to horde. Utilize it, or I'll stop giving out treasure. >:D
|
1. Apply secondary saving throws in subsequent rounds for some spells.2. Add in medium tier saving throws to compensate for some class problems.
3. Switch to the defenses system from 4e with your level as the base save plus any modifiers added to 10.
4. A class base save added to half your level plus any modifiers added to a d20 roll.
Edit:
5. Action points, I guess this could be one too.
Question. How do these suggestions make the game more fun for the players and DM?
|
|
Question. How do these suggestions make the game more fun for the players and DM?
1. Apply secondary saving throws in subsequent rounds for some spells.
--This makes it more likely that you'll succeed on a saving through subsequent rolling. More chances increase the likelihood of a save and decreases the chance of something horrid happening from a single check. This prevents sudden disconnects in meta-to-in-game action.
2. Add in medium tier saving throws to compensate for some class problems.
--This would create a situation where classes have more versatility, increasing what a player could do in the long term. Its really not much different than the status quo.
3. Switch to the defenses system from 4e with your level as the base save plus any modifiers added to 10.
--This one puts the attack in the hands of the user instead of in the hands of the PC. This one means players will get more chances to roll, but is otherwise just a swap in who gets to roll (there are some other slight differences to compensate for the change).
4. A class base save added to half your level plus any modifiers added to a d20 roll.
--This one replaces the existing save with a level based approach (so multiclassing doesn't affect it as much). It also means that a multiclass fighter 2/barbarian 2/ranger 2 doesn't have a 0 base will save or a +9 base fortitude save.
5. Action points, I guess this could be one too.
--This enables you to add more dice to your rolls, which can modify them up or down. This one personally sounds the most fun to me, but I might be partial due to my experience with other games that utilize this system. eh...
6. State in the books that leaving a save low could result in catastrophe.
--This one really seems like a band-aid and doesn't really address any issues that might come up. Not so much a solution as it is a clarification of the Rules as intended.
7. Remove the ability modifiers from saving throws and from DCs.
--This one really just leaves an exposed core mechanic and begs the question: Why then do we have ability scores? This one prevents abuses through munchkin'n but really doesn't seem all that fun to me.
-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-
Really, the idea is that I wondered if Saving Throws as are could be problematic. I still don't see that they're that off, but it comes up enough for me to ask the question. I hope that helps even more than my last post.
Thanks
Studpuffin
Tying some disparate problems together here:
What if we gave fighters a bonus to their action points per level? Call it an extra 1-5 per level. Would that even out the fighter to some extent?
That could potentially solve a lot of problems. Fighters typically have a lot more die rolls, and more chances to drop their weapon/critically fail on a "1," especially because casters don't even need to roll to cast a spell (unless they're threatened). And if an action point could be, say, traded for an immediate 5-ft. step instead of a bonus... yeah, that proposal would solve pretty much 75% of the class' issues in one shot.
This deserves its own thread. I'm at work, so I don't have the time to devote to it. Anyone want to kick off that conversation?
Started one HERE.
|
I'm a big fan of three save progressions. It makes a lot more sense to me, makes D.C.'s a little tougher, and also puts some variety into similar classes.
It also goes a long way to balance out some classes a lot better than the two progressions do.
Lvl
1 +1
2 +1
3 +2
4 +2
5 +3
6 +3
7 +4
8 +4
9 +5
10 +5
11 +6
12 +6
13 +7
14 +7
15 +8
16 +8
17 +9
18 +9
19 +10
20 +10
Another option I use, is that Prestige Classes do not keep bumping Saves up. They simply continue your previous progression, based on what the DM tells you is the closest progression. There are a few exceptions, but this keeps Saves a lot lower, but keeps low saves higher, where they really need to be.
That could potentially solve a lot of problems. Fighters typically have a lot more die rolls, and more chances to drop their weapon/critically fail on a "1," especially because casters don't even need to roll to cast a spell (unless they're threatened). And if an action point could be, say, traded for an immediate 5-ft. step instead of a bonus... yeah, that proposal would solve pretty much 75% of the class' issues in one shot.Tying some disparate problems together here:
What if we gave fighters a bonus to their action points per level? Call it an extra 1-5 per level. Would that even out the fighter to some extent?
Critically failing is a homebrew rule though, all the book says is that on an attack roll or save throw a '1' on the dice is always a failure.
Fighters typically have a lot more die rolls, and more chances to drop their weapon/critically fail on a "1," especially because casters don't even need to roll to cast a spell (unless they're threatened).Critically failing is a homebrew rule though, all the book says is that on an attack roll or save throw a '1' on the dice is always a failure.
Insert [if those rules are used] in the appropriate spot. The rest of the point still stands, esp. with respect to number of dice rolled.
K, clears my issues... thanks for putting up with them.
I wonder, how much of the problem can we level at DM's deliberately targeting characters lowest saves? You can make the argument that Mr High-Level Mage knows from experience that Imprisonment tends to be more reliable against Fighters (low Will). But is that meta-gaming on the DMs part?
I've noticed when I DM at mid to high level games I will create a PC's "kryptonite" villain. That is, a bad guy that focuses on a certain charater(s)' weakness after a few sessions.
I blame the players. >:)If they didnt pile on modifier after modifier from countless abilities/items and turn virtually every character they create into a tank-mage I wouldnt sharpshoot them like that. I would content myself only to weaving as good a story as I can.
However, some people think the games objective is just "see who can make the most uber-leet dude" (and btw whoopdee-doo to those that do, we all know it can be done). So, I'll continue to sharpshoot a PCs greatest weakness if they are otherwise having too easy a time.
I wonder, how much of the problem can we level at DM's deliberately targeting characters lowest saves? You can make the argument that Mr High-Level Mage knows from experience that Imprisonment tends to be more reliable against Fighters (low Will). But is that meta-gaming on the DMs part?I've noticed when I DM at mid to high level games I will create a PC's "kryptonite" villain. That is, a bad guy that focuses on a certain charater(s)' weakness after a few sessions.
I blame the players. >:)
If they didnt pile on modifier after modifier from countless abilities/items and turn virtually every character they create into a tank-mage I wouldnt sharpshoot them like that. I would content myself only to weaving as good a story as I can.
However, some people think the games objective is just "see who can make the most uber-leet dude" (and btw whoopdee-doo to those that do, we all know it can be done). So, I'll continue to sharpshoot a PCs greatest weakness if they are otherwise having too easy a time.
Your sharp shooting is why I do it.
Just because I want my spells to have an effect when every creature I come across has Save throw bonuses in the 20's doesn't mean I want to min/max. I just want to be able to be effective. It helps if a DM would allow Dominate monster to work every now and again... or if all my encounters were not just "this is supposed to be tough on you" or "This is part of my crazy story so You can't just dominate it in the first round" encounters. I can't help it I get frustrated at hearing "It saved... again" everytime I throw a spell with a save throw. I'm limited on what I can do, but everytime another monster or NPC shows up that just 'happens' to have just the right defense up (even after a very successful targeted dispel magic) I get more than annoyed... I decide to "teach the DM a lesson" by throwing spells he has no chance against (enervation, D. Anchor + forcecage, Rays of Exhaustion, et al.) and making sure I always make my saves too, or his actions are ineffective. After all as you seem to realise "turnabout is fair play."
It's the same reason I try and pile on some AC and miss chances and good save items. If I don't I get one shot killed, and that's no fun either.
Turtling and min/maxing is generally a symptom of a player coping from a run in with a bad DM, or having too much thrown at his character time after time. I would prefer to have other cool items... but if the DM insists on throwing balor after balor after ancient red dragon after taresque at me, I have to do what I must to live and succeed.
Maybe a better idea then "sharp shooting" would be to talk to the players about what is happening. Discuss with them why you aren't happy with the way things are going, and if there is something that you as a DM can do to help them realise what they are doing isn't nessecary.
Everytime you "snipe" another PC you just prove again how arbitary you are as a DM and how much more and better prepared they need to be just to survive and have a chance at doing something.
In the end every player only responses to what the DM does. It's not the players... it's the DM.
Just because I want my spells to have an effect when every creature I come across has Save throw bonuses in the 20's doesn't mean I want to min/max. I just want to be able to be effective. It helps if a DM would allow Dominate monster to work every now and again... or if all my encounters were not just "this is supposed to be tough on you" or "This is part of my crazy story so You can't just dominate it in the first round" encounters. I can't help it I get frustrated at hearing "It saved... again" everytime I throw a spell with a save throw. I'm limited on what I can do, but everytime another monster or NPC shows up that just 'happens' to have just the right defense up (even after a very successful targeted dispel magic) I get more than annoyed... I decide to "teach the DM a lesson" by throwing spells he has no chance against (enervation, D. Anchor + forcecage, Rays of Exhaustion, et al.) and making sure I always make my saves too, or his actions are ineffective. After all as you seem to realise "turnabout is fair play."
It's the same reason I try and pile on some AC and miss chances and good save items. If I don't I get one shot killed, and that's no fun either.
Turtling and min/maxing is generally a symptom of a player coping from a run in with a bad DM, or having too much thrown at his character time after time. I would prefer to have other cool items... but if the DM insists on throwing balor after balor after ancient red dragon after taresque at me, I have to do what I must to live and succeed.
Maybe a better idea then "sharp shooting" would be to talk to the players about what is happening. Discuss with them why you aren't happy with the way things are going, and if there is something that you as a DM can do to help them realise what they are doing isn't nessecary.
Everytime you "snipe" another PC you just prove again how arbitary you are as a DM and how much more and better prepared they need to be just to survive and have a chance at doing something.
In the end every player only responses to what the DM does. It's not the players... it's the DM.
First, let me say, I agree with your assessment, Mr. Spalding. When DMs do this, the players react accordingly.
But, I must also say, having been a DM and a player in many campaigns, sometimes the players start this chain reaction all on their own.
All it takes is a solid player who understands the rules and min/maxes his character's abilities, and suddenly he is one-shotting and SoDing encounters all oer the place, forcing the DM to counter with arbitrary "it saves." responses (hopefully the DM at least pretends to look at the dice before announcing that the save was a success) and to counter with bigger, badder, or at least more bad guys in every encounter to compensate for the deadly player.
What can be worse, when this happens, is that other players may not be doing this. Either they refuse to head down that path, or they don't know how.
When this happens, you have lopsided encounters full of big nasty stuff that is well-matched to the deadly player, but that also tends to one-shot, or at least frustrate, the not-so-deadly players. Nobody likes his fighter to whiff..whiff..whiff..whiff because they're fighting an AC behemoth that the min/maxed barbarian is opening up like a can opener.
I did this in Red Hand of Doom. I came into it a bit late, whipped up a 3.5e Warmage with a couple handy items from the Magic Item Compendium and a healthy selection of feats from Complete Mage and Complete Arcane, and began one-shotting just about everything we faced. The DM wasn't prepared for this, and the other players were, shall I say, poorly constructed (from a viewpoint of min/maxing, anyway). The DM started toughening up the encounters, and virtually auto-saving against everything I threw (I once cast a DC 21 Fireball at 8 mooks that was met with 7 saves and one fail - I later looked them up and their REF save was +5 - statistically only 2 should have saved, but the damage would have one-shotted 6 mooks and left the other two almost dead so they miraculously saved). The encounters got bigger and deadlier, and the other players with their underperforming characters couldn't cope with the escalating difficulty. One player actually suicided his character and built a new character, a half-ogre fighter with the level adjustment miscalculated so he was way overpowered at our levels. One player quit playing entirely. The DM eventually kind of let that campaign fall into an abyss as everyone was losing interest.
I regret that outcome. My only intention was to make an evocation specialist who was actually useful (we all know how bad evocation is). I was new to the group and didn't realize the other players were not efficient in their character design. Had I known, I would have gone a different direction, because I did already know the danger of having wildly differing power levels in the same group of adventurers.
So, while we can blame bad DMing for chasing players into this mentality, we also must realize that sometimes it's the players who start the chain reaction, not the DM.
At least sometimes.
|
|
So, with 122 minutes left... What have we learned?
I still think that the majority of the problem we see with saving throws comes from the idea that players must min/max in order to survive. It doesn't come from a problem with the actual statistics, but with how people inevitably play the game. A GM can snipe, a player can munchkin... inevitably two people's ideas for how the game should work will clash. Then we see blame aimed at some part of the game, which often erupts from fighter will saves and how its hard to raise them. The problem isn't the fighter's base save, the problem stems from people always wanting more.
I have a saying I tell to my GMs: "I want superpowers!" What this means is that if he's going to hand out things that are unbalanced, overpowered, and unfair then he can expect the same from my characters and probably from the other players as well. The rules are meant to be used to have fun, not as some psuedo-cold war arms race.
IBL, Baby!
Ok, wow on your warmage... I still tend to follow the 3.5 Opt boards opinion on the class but that's just my prejudice.
However did the DM just start arbitrarily giving the "it saves" response? Or did he talk to you about the problem?
Granted the player can start this chain, however the DM doesn't have to play into it. He has options.
Talk to the player involved. If I'm playing a wizard and my Int is through the roof and I grabbed both of the spell focuses and the DM can't make the saves, he could just talk to me. I might be willing to change out the spell focuses for different feats, or take a small hit to my INT for a boost to my CON or DEX (survivalibility for shbang powers). It lets me know what's going on, that I can ease up some, and it allows him to not have to fudge things and get frustrated over monsters falling over too easy. It probably makes the other players happier too. A quick comment from the DM later on "You've noticed that the monsters are getting better at shaking off your spells." could be a "Trigger" phrase that lets the player know that he can "up the anti" some again and retake those feats he had earlier.
This doesn't require "sniping" the player involved, or starting a contest. A few words and everyone is still happy, the game is back on track and I still have a wizard I like to play with a decent shot of getting my spells off (maybe 60~70% instead of the 100% I had eariler).