...if I wanted to nerf my players and limit their fun.
Well, which is it? Is the ability too powerful and thus needs a nerf for the sake of game balance -- or is the ability fine and doesn't need a nerf. You want to have the spell balanced, but it's clearly not given your parameters. Thus, you really have three choices:
1) Come on the forums and complain. Paizo staff stop in from time to time, but even then, it's probably not going to be errata. This is really the "pass the GM responsibilities to Paizo" way of handling it.
2) Change it. Give monsters a flat bonus against slumber hex attacks. Put on a hit die cap. Roll a d10 and on a 1 or 2, the monster saves automatically. Is it fudging the rules? Yes. But what's the GM's primary job? To be the arbiter of game balance. If it's imbalanced, fix it!
3) Do nothing. Your witch character will probably trivialize a few encounters. If the published adventure BBEG is a single guy with a bad will save, it probably will end the encounter. If you want it to end in such a boring manner, that's fine. If you don't, see previous choice.
... What usually happens is once the monsters are base to base with the barbarian or monk, the witch usually uses the Hex, allowing either character to Coup-de-Grace (Bows and Greataxes are both X3). Taking the Attack of Opportunity is always worth it, especially when the straight class Oracle is packing Shield Other and lots of channels.
I think the elimination of the NPC might make the path a bit too hard. I think the few bad guys who are immune to the tactics described above might wipe the party without the damage output/soakage of a brute...
Have the gnolls switch tactics again. Sunder works on an AoO too >;). Sounds like you have players who build strong characters, which just means you can be MORE EVIL. AP had 12 gnolls? Make it 16. AP has ONE BBEG as the climactic battle? Add 4 more archer spec'd Gnoll Rangers. The AP as written should be your baseline. You've discovered that your Players and PCs are above the base line. Hit 'em harder, faster, and more often. Who care if the AP has it taking them a full day to travel between encounters- It's happening now. Yes, now, while you are still licking yor wounds and burning every charge in that Wand of CLW to heal back to 100%. And since they've heard about you, they're attacking from SPIDER HOLES. And laying big pit traps, with 1/2 the gnolls down IN THE PIT. Archer smarcher :)
Thanks for input. I mispoke when I mentioned the Surprise move part of the problem when I was just trying to use it as an example of what can be done with the Witch's Hex. I'm not looking to nerf the power, but am looking for an alternative to the power-level of the Hex.
I didn't think I was complaining, merely looking for objective alternatives to the Hex, as other DMs who have ran games with a witch might have. Anyways, I'm probably gonna end up running it as is, and just have to end up fudging a lot of rolls (or give every BBEG of the module Hero Points)
Thanks for input. I mispoke when I mentioned the Surprise move part of the problem when I was just trying to use it as an example of what can be done with the Witch's Hex. I'm not looking to nerf the power, but am looking for an alternative to the power-level of the Hex.
Wouldn't you consider "changing the power because it's too good to something not as good as the origional" to be a nerf? I'm just asking.
That aside, here is what seems to be the problem. Your player, playing a class that has been alpha and beta playtested by thousands of people prior to final release, with a useful power that is still inherently limited by certain factors, has become extremely powerful in the specific AP you are running due to A: an overall lack of the inherent limiters (creature types), B: the specific design of the encounters (callous allies/no allies), and C: an effective team with with an NPC (or any other PCs who exploit the advantage intelligently).
So your player found a "strong" class/ability combo for this AP. Good for him, better than finding a weak one. The inherent fault (although that is not the proper word for it) lies in the structure of the AP, not in the PC's class. If I were you (which I am not, but that is a better preface than just saying "Just do this") I would adjust the AP, adding extra allies and such. Failing that, I would talk to the player if the ability is actually lessening the fun for the other players (who I would ask that very question of first). Failing that, then I would consider house-ruling the ability, but again, only if other players are not having fun.
This reminds me of when a legitimate "Player didn't know the campaign was about undead" Radiant Servant of Pelor cropped up in an Age of Worms game. Or, as great example of the "Secret I-Win Button" when my wife played an Entropomancer in Age of Worms, totally unaware that recovering a Sphere of Anihhilation was part of the plot!
There is really only two paths of thought with this: Congratulate the player on finding a class that puts the bad guys on the ropes, or explain that you want the AP to be challenging for all the PCs, so you are adjusting some things. Nothing wrong with either one, but the second one can be perilous. Better to adjust the AP and give the PC more targets to pick from than to take the bullets out of his gun. Thats what makes zombie movies/games scary. Its not that you don't have bullets, its that you don't have ENOUGH bullets.
Well, which is it? Is the ability too powerful and thus needs a nerf for the sake of game balance -- or is the ability fine and doesn't need a nerf.
Make a DC 16 Will save against False Dichotomies.
This reminds me of when a legitimate "Player didn't know the campaign was about undead" Radiant Servant of Pelor cropped up in an Age of Worms game
Given more than half of the undead weren't actually UNDEAD, it's a pretty half-assed "I win" button.
Sunder works on an AoO too >;).
The Attack Action (which Sunder uses) is a Standard Action. So... No Sunder AoO`s.
But you can use Vital Strike to your heart`s content with those Sunder Attack Actions.Better to adjust the AP and give the PC more targets to pick from than to take the bullets out of his gun.
Unfortunately, I think that advice conflicts with one of the major motivations of running a published adventure saga like the Pathfinder APs, namely that there is a minimum of preparation. Not to mention that if the AP as written is correctly CR`d, there isn`t any objective guide on how much to up-gun the opposition.
HD limits, or usage limits (use CHA as a 2ndary stat to determine, like channel energy?, or to be really strict make it match Surprising Movement`s usages) are obvious limiting factors. I think the ability as written IS too strong, and unless all Pathfinder adventures are to be skewed around the potential existence of this at-will ability, the vast majority of opponents ARE going to be susceptable to it... which is why I think Errata is called for, just like Paladin Smite.
I still say the easiest fix is to let the gnolls buddy do a AoO non lethal kick on him when he falls from sleep to wake him up. Seems like a pretty simple answer to me.
+1
Though that ends up weakening ALL Sleep abilities, most of which are limited per/day (as SLA`s or Spell Slots).I don`t think that the power used once or twice per day is over powering,
just that it can be spammed non-stop without using limited resources. (thus there`s no reason to ever conserve it`s usages `just in case` it`s super useful later)
(of course, as GM you can implement the AoO thing ONLY with this ability... rules consistency aside)
|
Sunder works on an AoO too >;).The Attack Action (which Sunder uses) is a Standard Action. So... No Sunder AoO`s.
But you can use Vital Strike to your heart`s content with those Sunder Attack Actions.
Pathfinder Core: Pg 197, Special Attacks
"...Some of these special attacks can be made as part of another action (such as an attack) or as an attack of opportunity."Disarm, Sunder, Trip are all valid as an AoO.
'You want to coup de grace my friend, it will be much harder without your weapon!'
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Pathfinder Core: Pg 197, Special Attacks
"...Some of these special attacks can be made as part of another action (such as an attack) or as an attack of opportunity."Disarm, Sunder, Trip are all valid as an AoO.
Some can be, some can`t. You have to read each description.
SUNDER
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.TRIP
You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack.DISARM
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack.
See the difference? Sunder species an action type (attack action), the other`s don`t.
Sunder is replacing the melee attack that normally is included IN THE ATTACK ACTION, it doesn`t replace any melee attack whenever you want. Otherwise it would have the same wording as the others.technically, the RAW is poorly written / grammatically incorrect as it SHOULD read `...as part of an attack action in place of THE melee attack´ or ´...in place of the melee attack of an attack action´, since saying `*A* melee attack´ inaccurately leads one to the conclusion (that you made) that it applies to ANY melee attack. But (besides that it would be shorter to just copy the text of Disarm/Trip if that function was intended, since the attack action *IS* a melee attack) the sentence isn`t written ´as part of an attack action OR in place of a melee attack´, but is one singular method, restricted to an attack action and the poor grammar choice of `a melee attack` instead of `the melee attack` doesn`t negate that.
thanks for bringing this up, because i hadn`t noticed the specific wording there before.... this could help explain why SO MANY people posting here continue to think Sunder is in place of any melee attack (and not only via the Attack Action).
|
... What usually happens is once the monsters are base to base with the barbarian or monk, the witch usually uses the Hex, allowing either character to Coup-de-Grace (Bows and Greataxes are both X3). Taking the Attack of Opportunity is always worth it, especially when the straight class Oracle is packing Shield Other and lots of channels.
I think the elimination of the NPC might make the path a bit too hard. I think the few bad guys who are immune to the tactics described above might wipe the party without the damage output/soakage of a brute...
instead of Ender's tactics change above, I'd just give some encounters grednade-like weapons.... splash damage is much less hurtful than a coup-de-grace... try to hit the barb/oracle's square its only a 5, and then the splash does damage to the sleeper, waking them up... as a bonus you deal damage to the barb/oracle
|
That totally depends on the type of profession checks, I don't have my PFS on this computer, but many of the profession checks in PFS don't have any one to charm, its either removing something or creating something... Neither of which are helped by charmingThere were an number of points in the game where we had to make a number of profession checks. The guy playing the witch character had a sleep and I think a charm hex, I think the witch was 6th level. Whenever a check was called for he would say, “ and he needs to make a DC 18 will save for my charm hex” We all laughed, and thoughts of “ these arn’t the pathfinders your looking for” crossed my mind.
Capt Kristov, I am sure you are correct in your reading of rules. I wasn't the DM at the pathfinder organized play game, i was a player.
Our group was in blood cove, which is controlled by the aspis corporation.
We were trying to pose as something other then Pathfinders. The DM was asking us to make profession checks, to convince the guards, merchant's etc that we came across as what we were "pretending" to be.
For example, the fighter had profession "guard" so he was somebody's body guard. My character, an inquisitor, was making survival checks to pose as a tracker. so on and so forth.
I think our idea was for one of the PCs an Osirioni, to pose as an antiquities procurer, and we the other PCs were his guards and entourage.
I have no idea if that was what was called for in the module or if the DM was improvising.
We all had fun.
|
|
Pathfinder Core: Pg 197, Special Attacks
"...Some of these special attacks can be made as part of another action (such as an attack) or as an attack of opportunity."Disarm, Sunder, Trip are all valid as an AoO.
Some can be, some can`t. You have to read each description.
SUNDER
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.TRIP
You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack.DISARM
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack.See the difference? Sunder species an action type (attack action), the other`s don`t.
Sunder is replacing the melee attack that normally is included IN THE ATTACK ACTION, it doesn`t replace any melee attack whenever you want. Otherwise it would have the same wording as the others.technically, the RAW is poorly written / grammatically incorrect as it SHOULD read `...as part of an attack action in place of THE melee attack´ or ´...in place of the melee attack of an attack action´, since saying `*A* melee attack´ inaccurately leads one to the conclusion (that you made) that it applies to ANY melee attack. But (besides that it would be shorter to just copy the text of Disarm/Trip if that function was intended, since the attack action *IS* a melee attack) the sentence isn`t written ´as part of an attack action OR in place of a melee attack´, but is one singular method, restricted to an attack action and the poor grammar choice of `a melee attack` instead of `the melee attack` doesn`t negate that.
thanks for bringing this up, because i hadn`t noticed the specific wording there before.... this could help explain why SO MANY people posting here continue to think Sunder is in place of any melee attack (and not only via the Attack Action).
Comparing the wording of all the other Special Attacks Sunder should read either 'As a standard action...' or 'You can attempt to Sunder in place of a melee attack.' Personally I would let someone Sunder as an AoO, so long as they don't generate an AoO in the process.
Boy oh boy Rakshaka... do I feel for you. I have a player in my high level Monday night game who was playing a witch... I've killed him twice... the first time he opted for reincarnate... came back as a half-orc... this most recent time he died (ah... wail of the banshee nice spell) :) he decided not to come back (and as his familiar also died...)
Anyway... another funny thing though... the guy that's my player has posted on this twice already. (Hi Jason). :)
And I didn't think about it or notice until he posted it, but he did stop "sucking the fun" out of the encounters, and limited his use of the hex.
I didn't have anything to contribute... just thought I'd tell you another GM feels your pain.
Cheers!
Dean; The_Minstrel_Wyrm
Thanks for input. I mispoke when I mentioned the Surprise move part of the problem when I was just trying to use it as an example of what can be done with the Witch's Hex. I'm not looking to nerf the power, but am looking for an alternative to the power-level of the Hex.Wouldn't you consider "changing the power because it's too good to something not as good as the origional" to be a nerf? I'm just asking.
That aside, here is what seems to be the problem. Your player, playing a class that has been alpha and beta playtested by thousands of people prior to final release, with a useful power that is still inherently limited by certain factors, has become extremely powerful in the specific AP you are running due to A: an overall lack of the inherent limiters (creature types), B: the specific design of the encounters (callous allies/no allies), and C: an effective team with with an NPC (or any other PCs who exploit the advantage intelligently).
So your player found a "strong" class/ability combo for this AP. Good for him, better than finding a weak one. The inherent fault (although that is not the proper word for it) lies in the structure of the AP, not in the PC's class. If I were you (which I am not, but that is a better preface than just saying "Just do this") I would adjust the AP, adding extra allies and such. Failing that, I would talk to the player if the ability is actually lessening the fun for the other players (who I would ask that very question of first). Failing that, then I would consider house-ruling the ability, but again, only if other players are not having fun.
This reminds me of when a legitimate "Player didn't know the campaign was about undead" Radiant Servant of Pelor cropped up in an Age of Worms game. Or, as great example of the "Secret I-Win Button" when my wife played an Entropomancer in Age of Worms, totally unaware that recovering a Sphere of Anihhilation was part of the plot!
There is really only two paths of thought with this:...
I think you've summed up the situation pretty clearly here, that's a +1!
Personally if you really are having issues with the sleep hex I would use an existing mechanic to either limit its use to 3 + Int mod per day, or, make it work like the other Hex's - you can only target each creature once per day.
Both keep the flavour without allowing it to dominate combat all day long.
And ditch the DMPC. It always leads to imbalance.
Not true at all. Now if you had said sometimes I would agree.
Ditch the DMPC.
If the DMPC is the other half of the combo I have to agree. If it is not then the OP has me confused.
|
I'm encountering a HUGE problem in my weekly game with the witch being almost completely ineffective. Our DM simply doesn't like rolling twice (misfortune), and so, even under the effects of Evil Eye's -2 to Will saves, he's clearly fudging rolls. Seriously, a fairly optimized witch's Misfortune hex is being saved against at about a 75% rate, with the 25% coming against insignificant mooks or when the fight is almost over.
I am taking over in a week or so, and I make all rolls in front of the screen when I DM. I will be interested to see if the success rate goes up, I suspect it will. The witch player shares my thinking, and it's in fact the only reason he hasn't asked to start playing a different character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just as a point of reference.
Nymphy McFeyington, level 8 Human Fey Sorcerer
Str 8
Dex 14
Con 14 (13 +1 from leveling)
Int 12
Wis 10
Cha 22 (15 +1 from leveling +2 racial +4 circlet of Charisma)
I am using a standard panel, but I can easily get a 24 charisma with a standard 15 point buy adding +1 to all my spell DCs.
Feats: Spell focus(Enchantment), Greater Spell Focus(Enchantment)
Spell DC is 16 + spell level
Spell DC for Enchantment spells is 18 + spell level
Spell DC for Enchantment(compulsion) spells is 20 + spell level
Spells 8/8/6/5
Level 1(8/day) - Entangle(DC 17), Grease(DC 17), Mage Armor, Obscuring Mist, +3 other
Level 2(8/day) - Hideous Laughter(DC 22), +3 other
Level 3(6/day) - Deep Slumber(DC 23), Suggestion(DC 23) +1 other
Level 4(5/day) - Confusion(DC 24), + Poison(DC 20)
Lets see, at level 1 I would be casting sleep at a DC of 16 which is about 3 higher than the witches slumber hex.
By the time I get to level 8, I will have deep slumber with a 23 DC, that is a save or die for any creature with 10 HD or less up to 6 times per day. A level 10 wizard with a 14 wisdom and a cloak of resistance +3 will have a +12 will save, and thus still fail their save half the time.
Hideous Laughter is pratically as save or die against anything with a weak will save.
Confusion is an AoE spell that will likely result in taking several opponents out of the fight.
At level 10, the sorcerer will have dominate person with a DC of 25. The only thing worse than taking a big bad out of the fight is turning that big bad on his friends.
Finally, the sorc has their laughing touch with allows no save, and has no HD limit.
At level 8 the witch's slumber hex with a DC of 10 + 4(half level) + 6(int mod, assuming same bonuses as the sorc's charisma) = 20. Personally, I would rather have deep slumber at a DC of 23.
|
|
I'm encountering a HUGE problem in my weekly game with the witch being almost completely ineffective. Our DM simply doesn't like rolling twice (misfortune), and so, even under the effects of Evil Eye's -2 to Will saves, he's clearly fudging rolls. Seriously, a fairly optimized witch's Misfortune hex is being saved against at about a 75% rate, with the 25% coming against insignificant mooks or when the fight is almost over.
I am taking over in a week or so, and I make all rolls in front of the screen when I DM. I will be interested to see if the success rate goes up, I suspect it will. The witch player shares my thinking, and it's in fact the only reason he hasn't asked to start playing a different character.
This may not be a popular opinion, but I understand where this GM is coming from. The witch in my game often leads first round with a slumber hex at the main leader, and soon will be doing the "evil eye on their will save-slumber" combo, and the way evil eye works now, its effective for 1 round minimum even if they save against it. This is a fairly strong combination, especially when you consider that witch, like wizard is a single stat type class, and both in my game have 20-21 in their INT scores, which makes this a tough save for non-casters to make, Iron Will feat or no. Consider that this is a no-cost freebie way to basically one-shot the BBEG, that scales and you can see where some GMs may have concern. I told the player in my game before he rolled the witch that I may alter the rules for this hex if it becomes a problem, but I am really trying hard not to alter the class. It has not been a problem so far ONLY because most of the main villians have been either surrounded by bodyguards or are casters. However, like an earlier poster mentioned, I am running RotRL and the next two books are nearly all ogres and giants. I am going to leave the hex alone and make a decision after HMM, but I am concerned that it may be a bit too powerful in the mid levels for a lower tier hex.
As far as playtesting the witch making it a valid point... lessee, there was at least twice as much playtesting for paladin's smite ability and the designers still had to adjust the strength on that, so this argument is not quite as strong as people would like it to be.
I am considering either making Slumber work only creatures with the same or lower HD as the witch or making it a two part hex, with the higher tier working on any HD. I also liked the idea of a bonus to save for creatures with HD higher than the witch's lvl. If anyone else has successfully modified the slumber hex without making it useless, I would love to hear the details.
I'm encountering a HUGE problem in my weekly game with the witch being almost completely ineffective. Our DM simply doesn't like rolling twice (misfortune), and so, even under the effects of Evil Eye's -2 to Will saves, he's clearly fudging rolls. Seriously, a fairly optimized witch's Misfortune hex is being saved against at about a 75% rate, with the 25% coming against insignificant mooks or when the fight is almost over.
I am taking over in a week or so, and I make all rolls in front of the screen when I DM. I will be interested to see if the success rate goes up, I suspect it will. The witch player shares my thinking, and it's in fact the only reason he hasn't asked to start playing a different character.
That sucks. He should just man up if he has an issue with it, and contrary to popular belief DM's can cheat.
IMHO, it is cheating if it not done to enrich the story and/or help the party. I get attached to my bad guys too, but not to the point of it affecting a player's character.
This may not be a popular opinion, but I understand where this GM is coming from. The witch in my game often leads first round with a slumber hex at the main leader, and soon will be doing the "evil eye on their will save-slumber" combo, and the way evil eye works now, its effective for 1 round minimum even if they save against it. This is a fairly strong combination, especially when you consider that witch, like wizard is a single stat type class, and both in my game have 20-21 in their INT scores, which makes this a tough save for non-casters to make, Iron Will feat or no. Consider that this is a no-cost freebie way to basically one-shot the BBEG, that scales and you can see where some GMs may have concern. I told the player in my game before he rolled the witch that I may alter the rules for this hex if it becomes a problem, but I am really trying hard not to alter the class. It has not been a problem so far ONLY because most of the main villians have been either surrounded by bodyguards or are casters. However, like an earlier poster mentioned, I am running RotRL and the next two books are nearly all ogres and giants. I am going to leave the hex alone and make a decision after HMM, but I am concerned that it may be a bit too powerful in the mid levels for a lower...I'm encountering a HUGE problem in my weekly game with the witch being almost completely ineffective. Our DM simply doesn't like rolling twice (misfortune), and so, even under the effects of Evil Eye's -2 to Will saves, he's clearly fudging rolls. Seriously, a fairly optimized witch's Misfortune hex is being saved against at about a 75% rate, with the 25% coming against insignificant mooks or when the fight is almost over.
I am taking over in a week or so, and I make all rolls in front of the screen when I DM. I will be interested to see if the success rate goes up, I suspect it will. The witch player shares my thinking, and it's in fact the only reason he hasn't asked to start playing a different character.
Every once in a while or at least once have the boss guy disguised as a minion, and let one of the minions be disguised as the boss. The "minion" waltzes over to the caster and..:), while the "boss" goes down in round 1 or 2.
I'm encountering a HUGE problem in my weekly game with the witch being almost completely ineffective. Our DM simply doesn't like rolling twice (misfortune), and so, even under the effects of Evil Eye's -2 to Will saves, he's clearly fudging rolls. Seriously, a fairly optimized witch's Misfortune hex is being saved against at about a 75% rate, with the 25% coming against insignificant mooks or when the fight is almost over.
I am taking over in a week or so, and I make all rolls in front of the screen when I DM. I will be interested to see if the success rate goes up, I suspect it will. The witch player shares my thinking, and it's in fact the only reason he hasn't asked to start playing a different character.
Evil eye requires a failed will save to last more than 1 round
Misfortune requires a failed will saveSlumber requires a failed will save.
3 rounds just to take 1 guy out of the fight? Why not evil eye then slumber or go straight for slumber?
This isn't a problem specific to the adventure path. Having an at will ability that makes an opponent vulnerable to a coup de grace is VERY powerful. Saying "just make every opponent a dragon, elf, vermin, etc." isn't a useful solution, nor is it always appropriate to add a half dozen mooks to act as alarm clocks. Even if the victim is awakened, they are still prone, and have dropped their weapon.
Coup de Grace is an EASY maneuver to pull off. Longspear is a simple weapon with reach and a x3 critical. Average damage means a DC 23.5 save or die (add a +1 and a little strength, and you are right up into the 30's!) A first level fighter with a great axe could easily make it a 50 DC! The victims high HP, AC, Saves, Mirror Image, etc. don't matter, nothing prevents CdG. Total concealment just makes it take twice as long.
It would be very easy to make it the stunning hex, exhaustion hex, staggering hex, dazing hex, etc. and would keep the basic effect of taking an opponent out for a round or two, without an auto-kill option.
Finally, Fortune and Mis-fortune are very powerful abilities, but they rely on the GM following the rules - that is, not fudging dice rolls to be effective. The witch also needs team-work to be at their best. It isn't so much what they can do, as what they can set up for the other party members to do.
|
|
I think thats another thing worth mentioning.. a witch in a party of 4 is fairly solid, a witch in a party of 6 or 7 is very strong. Like a bard whose abilities get better the more people whose rolls they enhance with their songs, the witches "debuffs" and hexes are effective the more people that can take advantage of their effects.
Plus, like Berik mentioned, witches are most effective inside 30' due to their hexing, which is a lot safer if you have two or three melee types between you and the BBEG.
I'd like to point out something... When the bad guys are snoozing, they're getting bonuses against the monk/ranger's attacks. Don't forget prone targets are harder to shoot at...
Not if you're getting Coup-de-Graced, there's no attack penalty on that.
On sundering the weapon: It's been tried, but since its effectively a Legacy Weapon taken straight from the path, this makes that a little problematic from a story stand-point. Add to that the fact the legacy weapon allows him to manifest a copy of the weapon (out of mold), and all I would do is deprive the archer of a round of shots or a coup-de-grace that round (which sometimes would work).
As for the Barbarian, due to the treasure output of the path, I'm walking around with about 5 +1 weapons, two of which are Greataxes. Once weapons start picking up significant enchantment bonuses (like the legacy weapon), sunder becomes a waste of an attack, since you can't possibly do enough damage to even give the 'broken' condtion.
I don't think you CAN Coup-de-Grace at range. So the +4 AC applies.
Not if you're getting Coup-de-Graced, there's no attack penalty on that.
You can coup-de-grace with a bow if you're adjacent.
Don't forget that the witch is a full caster and she certainly has access to other spells that will drop the BBEG with a failed saving throw, spells that could potentially have a higher DC.
The witch's Slumber hex will have the same DC as her most powerful spells. She could take Spell Focus as a feat, of course, but likewise she could take Ability Focus as well.
Yes, the Slumber hex is good (an at will SoD/SoS). However, it's also limited to one attempt per target per day: "Whether or not the save is successful, a creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day." (APG, pg. 67)
As others have stated, it's a Charm (Compulsion), which means an active protection from chaos/evil/good/law or magic circle blocks the effect. Also, there are numerous creature types that are immune.
When an equal level wizard can easily spam cause fear, color spray, sleep, hideous laughter, scare, web, deep slumber, hold person, etc. using personally created scrolls (and wands) against the same target(s) until they fail a save, it's not necessarily that powerful.
I see not the slightest problem with the witches hex. Frankly the "it's too broken" threads have gotten old, especially when MOST of them are a result of bad GMing/not understand the rules.
The whole "not being able to use them more than once on a given target" rule is a HUGE drawback to hexes. I don't see how everyone keeps thinking they are so great. They look very "okay" to me.
I see not the slightest problem with the witches hex. Frankly the "it's too broken" threads have gotten old, especially when MOST of them are a result of bad GMing/not understand the rules.
As I've said before, if you're not going to post anything constructive, please don't post. This is an advice thread for someone looking for help with a problem that was crept up with an overpowered mechanic, not an opinion thread on deconstructing whether someone is a bad DM. Comments like the above are trite and contribute nothing to these boards other than a feeling of self-gifted superiority and a sense of false elitism. If
I see not the slightest problem with the witches hex. Frankly the "it's too broken" threads have gotten old, especially when MOST of them are a result of bad GMing/not understand the rules.As I've said before, if you're not going to post anything constructive, please don't post. This is an advice thread for someone looking for help with a problem that was crept up with an overpowered mechanic, not an opinion thread on deconstructing whether someone is a bad DM. Comments like the above are trite and contribute nothing to these boards other than a feeling of self-gifted superiority and a sense of false elitism. If
I will step back a moment from my frustration and appologize for any insult I gave. I appologize if the post lacked enough details to make my point clear.
However, I do honestly believe that the main problem you have is the mindset of "this is broken". The mechanic is not overpowered. It has many limitations that can be taken advantage of.
1) Anything immune to sleep or mind affect effects is immune to it. This is a pretty sizeable subset.
2) Despite the number of time per day it can be used it can be used precisely once per target.
3) There are plenty of ways to raise a will save permanent or temporarily. The DC is designed to be high enough to matter without being rediculous.
4) Coup de Grace is a full round action that provokes attacks of opportunity and can be interrupted.
5) It is sleep, not paralysis. That means that it is fairly easy to awaken the opponent.
6) In not one post on here have you ever mentioned that even one of your players has a problem with the tactic. If it isn't detracting from their fun (and the regularity with which they do it certainly argues that it isn't) then what is the problem?
These are 6 points to help make this one specific tactic managable. Step back from the "this is bad, the ability is broken, let's house rule a change to force the players to play a different way" mindset and look at other ways to handle it the players will probably find it a MUCH more interesting fix then anything suggested to "fix the broken ability".
Okay, that's fair, and I apologize. Honestly, every player in the group, having seen the Hex used through most of two modules agrees that it is quite overpowered. This may be due to the fact that the AP is very humnanoid and outsider specific, and deals a lot with savage gnolls that typically have terrible will saves. Nonetheless, anytime I've read the description of a new, neat monster (like the Peryton) it gets dropped in a round or two becasue of the Hex.
Okay, that's fair, and I apologize. Honestly, every player in the group, having seen the Hex used through most of two modules agrees that it is quite overpowered. This may be due to the fact that the AP is very humnanoid and outsider specific, and deals a lot with savage gnolls that typically have terrible will saves. Nonetheless, anytime I've read the description of a new, neat monster (like the Peryton) it gets dropped in a round or two becasue of the Hex.
Okay if the players also feels it's overpowered then it's probably house rules rewrite time. My recommendation would be to remove the 1/day/person limitation. The first failed save makes them fatigued, the second makes them exhausted and the third actually puts them to sleep. This means it takes 3 failed saves to get to Coup de Grace time, but the other effects are debiliting and related to the original effect.
I think my problem with the Hex is simply that it gets around a lot of restrictions that similar abilities have. For instance, with a lot of Outsiders, you have spell resistance as an added defense to mitigate their average saves. The hex completely ignores this. It might be able to affect a creature once a day, but that suddenly makes that one saving throw typically more crucial than any other roll the monster might roll. Let me compare the Hex to a number of other spells:
-Hex vs Sleep Spell: Only at low levels does the actual spell perform better than the Hex. Nonetheless, a 5 HD monster is pretty realistic for a 1st or 2nd level party to fight, especially as a finale. The hex goes around that.
-Hex vs Hideous Laughter or Feytouch Sorcerer Bloodline Ability: This is probably the most comparable in power level to the Hex, but still, it does not leave the target helpless on a failed save and Hideous Laughter itself can have mitigating bonuses for humor not translating well. Sure, a sorcerer could cast it multiple times... up to the number of times a day he has spells. The witch effectively has it once per opponent, which will typically average out to more uses during a day than the number of spell slots available to a sorcerer or bard of similar level.
-Hex vs Hold Person: Protection from Evil will stop both as stated, but Hold Person gets a Will Save every round to snap out of. At mid to high levels, there's a lot more options available for dealing with paralysis in the form of spells than than are for sleep. (Like Freedom of Movement, which I don't think negates the effects of the Slumber curse)
-Hex vs Death Spells: As I've stated, the "save or sink" spells got changed to do outright damage instead of instantly killing. This I think is what strikes me the most about the Hex at mid-level to high level. Very few effects in the game outright take anyone out of the fight anymore. If they do, they typically give another save like the 'Hold Spells' or are extremely limited in how they can be pulled off (like Power Word Kill or Phantasmal Killer). The Hex just gets better as the Witch goes up in level and continues to be a "Save or Die" type effect.
Sure, there won't always be the case of the spell being instant death if the bad guys have the defenses that have been mentioned (Pro-evil/mooks to wake them up/etc.) It's just gotten to the point in the game that certain encounters almost aren't even worth playing out, specifically any solo beastie that can't get close to beating a DC 18 Will save. At 5th to 6th level, this has been good majority of the encountered monsters. Even in encounters with lots of mooks, most of them get dropped before they can even be in any position to aid the guy that just fell asleep, and usually, its more tactically advantageous to try and kill the witch than to wake up a fallen comrade (Unless he's the leader or really powerful), which gives the Witch another round to put someone else to sleep. Furthermore, sometimes it makes no sense at all for certain monsters to have mooks or access to the protections listed, especially when they're written into the module to be that way. These are the monsters that die the quickest.
I know I could spend a whole bunch of time re-writing the module to mitigate the power level of the group, and to a degree I have (Since it's 3.5 and most of it has to be converted to Pathfinder). Even giving the bad guys access to the APG, they're still getting annihilated, and its usually the Slumber Hex that comes to the forefront. Still, I want to keep what I consider (and I am debatable in this opinion) a work of art in the condition closest to its original form, including how the module plays out. However, if the players are walking through what I thought was considered to be a tough module (House of the Beast), I clearly need to make some adjustments.
*stuff*
Is it possible for some of the under equipped, dumb mooks to run away?
Maybe back to their leader [or his] to inform them [and possibly others] that the enemy [PC's] are making everyone fall asleep?
I agree that it's not a good idea to kit out monsters with anti-PC tech without good reason [knowledge], but it should be possible to have some monsters that don't "fight to the death" [evil stupid!] run to inform others of what's going on.
Not to derail, but again on the Zen Archer:
Because of him, there have never been survivors.
Speed 40 and all the aforementioned bow tricks make him one power-house of a gnoll killer. I've used cover, tricks with Hover (for debris cloud), smoke, darkness, fog clouds and the like to combat the effectiveness some, but with a high enough perception (versus gnolls, impossible for him to fail) and tracking, there haven't been any survivors. His max range increment is beyond the range of most maximum distances for perception checks, so even using the "lone gnoll watching on the mountaintop who sees the fight" doesn't quite jive when the monk's perception score quadruples the gnoll's. (And if he can see him, he can basically shoot him) Oh, to be sure after enough arrow riddled bodies get left behind, and someone's gonna take notice and tales will spread. As written, the AP doesn't give the gnolls lots of tech to deal with this, though with enough prayers to Rovagug, I suppose miracles that help cause others' destruction could happen.
Not to derail, but again on the Zen Archer:
Because of him, there have never been survivors.
Speed 40 and all the aforementioned bow tricks make him one power-house of a gnoll killer. I've used cover, tricks with Hover (for debris cloud), smoke, darkness, fog clouds and the like to combat the effectiveness some, but with a high enough perception (versus gnolls, impossible for him to fail) and tracking, there haven't been any survivors. His max range increment is beyond the range of most maximum distances for perception checks, so even using the "lone gnoll watching on the mountaintop who sees the fight" doesn't quite jive when the monk's perception score quadruples the gnoll's. (And if he can see him, he can basically shoot him) Oh, to be sure after enough arrow riddled bodies get left behind, and someone's gonna take notice and tales will spread. As written, the AP doesn't give the gnolls lots of tech to deal with this, though with enough prayers to Rovagug, I suppose miracles that help cause others' destruction could happen.
Hmm, a Witch and a Sniper, that's a tricky one. How about night attacks, the Elf doesn't have darkvision to track or target very far??