|
Canvassing opinion once again.
Energy Drain works like a poison on the soul.
When hit by a creature with energy drain, you get to save straight way. If you fail, you gain one permanent negative energy level, and must save again on subsequent rounds or continue getting more of them. One successful save finishes the process, but there is otherwise no time limit.
Multiple hits work just like multiple poison hits, save the duration isn't affected (just the DC goes up by 2).
Undead which naturally drain 2 energy levels still only drain one, but the save DC is +4.
Undead could still gain the 5 temporary hit points on draining you, though I'm not sure about whether to keep this.
Restoration cast whilst you are "energy poisoned" will stop the poison, without material cost, but not restore any levels.
Purpose of this - without ultimately making undead greater CR (in my opinion, because you now get the initial saving throw), it makes them more scary.
What do you think?
Richard
This will cause mass hysteria - everyone without great saving throws will run away screaming if energy drain is even mentioned.
The chances of a vampire killing someone who doesn't have the power to easily save against it grows quite large, since once you fail the first save, subsequent saves that even worse.
I would advise against it.
Canvassing opinion once again.
Energy Drain works like a poison on the soul.
When hit by a creature with energy drain, you get to save straight way. If you fail, you gain one permanent negative energy level, and must save again on subsequent rounds or continue getting more of them. One successful save finishes the process, but there is otherwise no time limit.
Multiple hits work just like multiple poison hits, save the duration isn't affected (just the DC goes up by 2).
Undead which naturally drain 2 energy levels still only drain one, but the save DC is +4.
Undead could still gain the 5 temporary hit points on draining you, though I'm not sure about whether to keep this.
Restoration cast whilst you are "energy poisoned" will stop the poison, without material cost, but not restore any levels.
Purpose of this - without ultimately making undead greater CR (in my opinion, because you now get the initial saving throw), it makes them more scary.
What do you think?
Richard
I agree with Kaeyoss. If your Fortitude save isn't up to snuff, one hit gets you into a world of hurt. You take a hit from a specter, fail the save. Then you keep saving till you make it? With permanent negative levels, that means you have the undead version of the rogue bleeding tactic. You could massacre a party by having incorporeal undead pop up from the floor or ceiling or walls, each one tag a PC, then leave and let the negative energy do its work. Also, restoration requires a costly component just to remove levels as it is; if you're also going to let it function as delay poison, that's even worse. It's also misleading, as it's not "restoring" anything. No, this change definitely makes undead more scary...and raises the CR too.
With permanent negative levels, that means you have the undead version of the rogue bleeding tactic.
A good analogy, only that this version is turned up all the way to twelve (yes, twelve), since you quickly lose everything, not just some HP like with bleed, or one ability like with poison (which has a limited duration, and isn't nearly as deadly unless it targets con).
And since it starts a countdown on your HD, not your HP, it works a lot faster, too.
Restoration isn't really helping, either, since you need to have it prepared (and in many circumstances, it's way out of your league when the nasties start showing up), and remember that it takes three whole rounds to cast - enough for the enemy to mess up the spellcasting.
And finally, permanent negative levels are a lot harder to restore. Restoration only gets to remove one permanent negative level on a given person per week, and is expensive to boot.
|
|
This will cause mass hysteria - everyone without great saving throws will run away screaming if energy drain is even mentioned.
Well, of course, back in 1st ed days, people did run away screaming whenever energy drain was mentioned.
What about if the duration was lessened - 6 rounds, or possibly 4 - like a poison?
Richard
P.S. Further thoughts:
My understanding of the origins of energy drain was that it was intentionally meant to be a form of attack against which there was no adequate defence. I believe that originally vampires and the like did hit point damage which couldn't be healed easily. Energy drain in 1st ed was always permanent and pretty much impossible to remove. It was always meant to be different to all the other sorts of attack you could endure.
Third edition changed this, and I'm not sure why. We already have characteristic draining attacks, why bother with energy drain. It's a clumsy thing to keep track of, no better now with all these temporary and permanent levels, and with Death Ward and Restoration its simply become just another type of attack which you need to be prepared for.
I would like to return Energy Drain into something akin to how it was originally envisaged. I very much remember playing in the first Ravenloft module in 1st ed and revisitting it in 3rd, and the two experiences were vastly different. In the former, the party ran away from Strahd, in the latter it was the other way around.
I want Energy Drain to pose a *real* risk that someone will get wiped out, even if the risk is relatively small. PCs should always be nervous about taking on Energy Draining undead even if the encounter is CR balanced. It should be something which takes the statisticians out of their comfort zone.
Maybe the answer is to keep the "endless poison" but make all negative levels temporary ones. We could then dispense of permanent negative energy levels altogether and allow PCs to make saving throws once per day after the encounter to try lose their temporary levels without risk of incurring a permanent one.
Still thrashing around ideas :-)
Richard,
Energy drain was possibly the most feared and hated attack in 1E for reasons you've already noted. You couldn't defend against it till the Unearthed Arcana gave you negative plane protection, and you couldn't cure it until you got restoration, which required an 18 Wisdom, 14th level cleric. But wights showed up commonly at 3rd or 4th level, before you could have access to either (need a 5th level cleric for negative plane protection). So the attack form smacked you around and you couldn't do anything about it. Not something most people find fun, this being unable to defend yourself from something and unable to fix it; generally, real life can do that without a heaping helping of it in our fantasy lives. So in 3E it got changed into something that didn't cripple the party partway through an adventure (if a bunch of 12th level characters got dropped to 7th level from a fight with some undead, the rest of their opponents would likely toast them afterwards) and let the game go on.
Even with a 4 round timer, you can pretty much cripple someone or kill them now. A wraith is a legitimate encounter for 4th level PCs...and one hit would annihilate the rogues, bards, sorcerers, and wizards as they failed to save the 1st time and each time thereafter. Even people with good Fort saves at that point will only be ahead by a few points on the save. Now imagine an ambush of dread wraiths hitting a high level party. The party's going to get hosed royally if each one manages to clip a PC in the surprise round. Yes, it's going to be frightening. Then the PCs have the problem that half the party when they're done is 6th level and the rest is somewhere from 8th to 12th or something. You've given the people who failed saves a death warrant. Worse, it isn't an honest instant-kill, much as people despise that; it's the death that comes from wanting to help but being too weak in the remaining encounters to help and thus dying ingloriously.
Also, you mentioned the 1E Ravenloft module. Take that with a grain of salt. It's a great adventure I'm told, but if it has "Ravenloft" in its name, it's gothic horror, meant to instill a sense of hopelessness. Not everyone's cup of tea, not the high fantasy of Pathfinder. And energy drain dates back to the 1E Monster Manual or possibly BECMI (don't remember for sure), which predates Ravenloft.
Tracking energy drain's actually not hard. It's a -1 to most everything per negative level. You note the number of negative levels which are temporary and then the number which are permanent, no big deal IMO. Not pleasant to do, but not that bad.
Perhaps the best idea is to try out a single monster with your temporary negative levels idea. Sure, some players will learn to keep death ward and restoration handy, minimizing the threat. Then they won't have greater magic weapon or neutralize poison or freedom of movement handy.
|
|
I would like Energy Drain to be something that no one has any adequate protection against.
I would also make all my energy draining encounters ones which the PCs entered into voluntarily knowing the risks involved.
Or, at least, tomb-defilers beware!
I would never dream of throwing large numbers of energy-draining creatures at PCs at whatever level.
I want Wights, Wraiths, Vampires and Spectres to be special. I intend there to be no defence against them (no Death Ward or Restoration). I'll probably increase the CR by 1, make Wraiths energy drainers, and use the second system I suggested.
If you get hit by a Wight (now a CR4 encounter), even a wizard should have +2 fortitude, which means (assuming you're 4th level) your chance of dying is quite low (4 DC 14 failed saves is about a 15% chance, allowing for reduced saves). And that's a worse case scenario because hopefully your fighters will be taking the thing on. My feeling is to make losing a temporary energy level a DC 20 fortitude save every time you rest overnight - so assuming you do survive the encounter you just need to go away and rest for a bit.
I want these creatures to use a special attack because I want these to be special encounters - in the sense that every other sort of encounter can be handled by CR balance and adequate preparation. Like I said, I wont throw these encounters at the party, but I want these encounters to be something which takes players out of their comfort zone.
If the players don't like them, they'll always be able to avoid them.
Richard
So, these encounters are forced retirement mechanisms?
... just putting this out there...
But instead of Energy Drain... doing levels. I work it as 1d10 damage per level drained.... what gets drained from target -- heals the person who did the Draining. This is Healing, and not Temporary Hit points, so you can not use it to go over your normal max.
Undead use this as a way to heal themselves. And it give them the same sensation and pleasure as eating does for a human.
........
When done the normal way, i just tell my party in advance... i am running away like crazy. I do not care if i am meta-gaming or not, you throw energy drain, at me, i am running for the hills. After all, losing one life is bad, losing one soul is eternal!!
My understanding of the origins of energy drain was that it was intentionally meant to be a form of attack against which there was no adequate defence. I believe that originally vampires and the like did hit point damage which couldn't be healed easily. Energy drain in 1st ed was always permanent and pretty much impossible to remove. It was always meant to be different to all the other sorts of attack you could endure.
Third edition changed this, and I'm not sure why.
I think you answered your own question: Apparently it was damage that was basically unavoidable (you were hit, you got it) and impossible to remove.
That means there could be no such thing as an experienced vampire hunter, really: He'd hunt vampires, they'd inevitably hit him, he'd get closer to the point where he would be stuck with something like having a maximum HP of 4.
That's not scary. That's arbitrarily evil and weapons-grade dumb.
We already have characteristic draining attacks, why bother with energy drain.
Because ability drain is not the same as energy drain. Ability drain makes you weaker, clumsier or more stupid. Energy drain robs you of your life force, your very being.
It's a clumsy thing to keep track of, no better now with all these temporary and permanent levels
Not true. PF has vastly improved the whole energy drain thing. Instead of a system where you could actually lose a level of experience (but which you could restore with powerful magic), you now have something that gives you a flat penalty on things and is either something you can shake off on your own, or need to get rid off with magic.
Gone are questions like "Damn, what did my character look like a level ago? Do I have to remove my most recent stuff? Anyone remember what I rolled for HP? If I get this restored, will I have to repeat everything as I've done before?....."
, and with Death Ward and Restoration its simply become just another type of attack which you need to be prepared for.
Except you can't prepare for everything, all the time.
So this means that the possibility to prepare for it rewards you for proper research before going adventuring, proper spell preparation, and generall wise and stratetic preparation.
The other thing just means people feel like the GM wants to get them over a barrel, since it's something the GM decides when to use and there's nothing they can do. In other words: Ammunition for Jerk GMs.
In the former, the party ran away from Strahd, in the latter it was the other way around.
And you claim that the changes to energy drain are solely responsible for this?
I want Energy Drain to pose a *real* risk that someone will get wiped out, even if the risk is relatively small.
That's the equivalent of saying "whenever you roll a natural 1 for an attack roll, you need to roll another d20. If it comes up 1 again, you decapitate yourself." Only more nasty. You overlook that the risk will, in many, many circumstances, be everything but small.
Wizards, for example, will probably be screwed if confronted with these difficult fortitude saves.
PCs should always be nervous about taking on Energy Draining undead even if the encounter is CR balanced.
If your PF players aren't nervous whenever something energy draining shows up, you're doing something wrong! ;-P
Seriously, though: When I play and face something with energy drain, I get nervous, and I noticed similar things with the rest of the groups I play in.
It may not be "S#&#, we are in a situation where we basically roll a die, and if it comes up odds we're dead", but energy drain will cause trouble.
And finally, I want to remind you that it was you who said he didn't want to mess with CRs. This will definitely mess with CRs, big time.
And what's worse: It's one of these things that can throw the CR thing out of whack (well, more so than it is already): It can create attacks that have a low chance of getting through, but when they get through, they're really devastating. Since CR is based, in part, on both the likeliness and the severety of the damage the monster can inflict, you have something that will either be a cakewalk for the players (because it didn't trigger) and basically give them too many XP, or they'll be royally screwed by the thing and get a pittance's worth of XP for their trouble.
Maybe the answer is to keep the "endless poison" but make all negative levels temporary ones. We could then dispense of permanent negative energy levels altogether and allow PCs to make saving throws once per day after the encounter to try lose their temporary levels without risk of incurring a permanent one.
What PCs? They're already dead.
I would like Energy Drain to be something that no one has any adequate protection against.
I would also make all my energy draining encounters ones which the PCs entered into voluntarily knowing the risks involved.
You just robbed yourself of a bunch of tools you can no longer use. And, in extension, a lot of plots become impossible.
For example, a "Vampire Hunt" style adventure just can't be done, since you labelled vampires as "strictly optional". That means whenever you create an adventure like this, you're just writing a story for yourself to read, since the players will pass up any quest that contains the V-word in its summary.
|
|
First of all, let me address your reference to "Jerk GMs".
I think you uncover here an issue which underlies a lot of these debates about how much power a GM should have. In my opinion there was a vast jump made when entering 3rd level to totally tie a GMs hands and give the power back to the player. I think this is something which has fuelled the rise of the 0e and 1e revivals (OSRIC and Swords and Wizardry) and suggests to me a clear divide in the gaming community.
I like the pathfinder rules very much because I like the versatility that they offer to players. However, I like being able to take power away from players some times too, to take them out of their comfort zone. For example, in my current campaign based on the first two APs, I've made Thassilonian magic items weird things out of 2e rules books which Identify / Detect Magic simply don't work with. These magic items are wacky, and need experimentation to discover. There's no formula for PCs to apply to solve this.
Now if you're very much in the "player power" camp you will hate this, as you will hate my suggestions for Energy Drain, and we simply have to agree to differ.
In my campaign I, as GM, am the player's friend, not their enemy. I want them to enjoy the game (we've been playing for 4 years now), though I want part of that enjoyment to be the sort of adrenalin rush you get when you realise that there are dangers out there that you cannot adequately prepare for. It's part of the rich tapestry of a "fantasy" life. But that's for my players and our group - which you can think of as Pathfinder with some 1e leanings.
I actually completely hate the idea of vampire hunting scenarios. At least, the only way you should be able to dispatch of a vampire in this way is by individual research and weakness finding. By role-play, in other words. After all, you can hunt everything else in the game, why not have one set of things which you would rather leave alone.
Richard
First of all, let me address your reference to "Jerk GMs".
I think you uncover here an issue which underlies a lot of these debates about how much power a GM should have. In my opinion there was a vast jump made when entering 3rd level to totally tie a GMs hands and give the power back to the player
Yeah, I hear it all the time, too.
It's just two things, really:
1: The rules just have done away with a lot of arbitrary nonsense. Arbitrary should not be in the rules. If the GM has some weird urge to do things arbitrarily, he should just own up and say he wants to be like that, not hide behind the rules, saying they require him to do this.
2: I have to fight the urge to throw up more than I could possibly eat when I hear "Player entitlement". Sure, some players overdo it, and sure, the GM puts work into everything, but that's absolutely irrelevant. Roleplaying is a team activity. Players have power, because they deserve it. They're into this to have fun, and if they have no say in how the game is played, they have no control over whether the game is played in a way they find enjoyable.
But this isn't really a rules issue. It's an issue between people. The rules don't really get into it.
As I said: some players overdo it (Demanding they get to play solar angels at 1st level, or that the GM is not allowed to use anything with a CR bigger than their level or crap like that). But not all players.
And that goes both ways: Some (but, again, not all) GMs overdo it, too. There are a lot of great GMs out there, and those who are decent and try to become better, but there also a bunch of jerks out there. People who seem to have an inferiourity complex the size of the Milky Way, who need to order around some of what would otherwise be their friends to feel like anything other than a complete failure. Others aren't that bad, but still do an overall bad job.
Again, those are a minority I think (especially the extreme cases), but the same goes for bad players.
However, I like being able to take power away from players some times too, to take them out of their comfort zone.
If they like to be taken out of their comfort zone, that's fine. It can greatly enhance the game. But do it to the wrong people and you'll do actual damage. Just saying.
Anyway, you really don't need a sizable part of the creatures in the core rules (including a couple of really iconic monsters) to become rocksfall monsters (From "Rocks fall. Everyone dies" where the GM just decides something, and nobody can do anyhting about it) for this.
Just use your imagination. Put some thought into it, and you will be able to create situations that give your players goosebumbs.
I have always found that those who need the rules to do their work for them in these regards to be lazy. It's a crutch. A good GM is able to achieve the desired effect without deus ex machina.
For example, in my current campaign based on the first two APs, I've made Thassilonian magic items weird things out of 2e rules books which Identify / Detect Magic simply don't work with. These magic items are wacky, and need experimentation to discover. There's no formula for PCs to apply to solve this.Now if you're very much in the "player power" camp you will hate this, as you will hate my suggestions for Energy Drain, and we simply have to agree to differ.
Huge difference. Instakill energy drain is nothing like this.
And yes, this identify block doesn't make sense. It's GM fiat, pure and simple. It should not be impossible - after all, it's still magic, and while they did things differently, they still use magic. Most of the underlying principles are there. So it's difficult - maybe really difficult - but not simply impossible. Especially once someone becomes more and more familiar with the magic after studying what they've already found, making notes, and all that.
I actually completely hate the idea of vampire hunting scenarios. At least, the only way you should be able to dispatch of a vampire in this way is by individual research and weakness finding. By role-play, in other words.
This has nothing to do with "roleplay". Nothing in the current rules makes it impossible to make vampires scary monsters. In fact, they're already plenty scary.
But your way limits them to super-villains nobody would want to face. No chance for lesser vampire minions being sent against you. Vampires are artificially limited to be supper-villains.
After all, you can hunt everything else in the game, why not have one set of things which you would rather leave alone.
Why have them in the game, then? "These are monsters, but if you fight one, you'd be very, very lucky if not at least one of you would die" This isn't Call of Cthulhu, and vampires aren't the Great old One, with damage ratings like "1d4 investigators per round".
The way Pathfinder does it is way better because you can have vampires (among many other things) as thematically appropriate "filler" encounters (i.e. something that is not a BBEG encounter) AND have vampires that scare the bejeezuz out of players.
And the best thing about the PF way is that the GM can't just laze around. If he wants his players to fear the vampire, he has to make them afraid of that vampire. He can't just say "It's a vampire. Fighting those is, as per the rules, akin to rolling d4-1 and just declaring that many people dead."
|
|
Well, we seem to be having our own little debate on this thread - wonder if anyone else is going to join in :-)
Let me first of all say, though, that you're way overplaying the deadliness of the change I want to make to energy drain. I didn't actually say that I was against making undead a greater CR, BTW, and I feel I would add 1 on the basis of this change, so if you consider that a Wight is now CR 4, and you stick that as an encounter against a party of four 4th level characters (a slightly challenging encounter), it's unlikely to get more than one hit, which even if it hits someone with a low fortitude save only has a 15% chance of killing them. Hardly a case of roll 1d4-1 and that's how many characters are dead.
But, importantly, the characters know that this is one of those encounters against which there is no defence. It's just luck. Of course, sensible play still tilts the odds in your favour, but if you get hit then all you can do is hope that you make one of those saving throws.
I think that there are players out there who want a world where if you do the right thing, you will succeed. Real life's not like that but then they're playing this game to get away from the vagaries and injustices of real life. The fantasy side in this sort of RPG extends beyond magic and dragons. Who am I to argue against what other people enjoy as players, however I don't enjoy this sort of thing as a GM because it seems to me you become little more than a foil for someone else's ego trip.
What I like to do as a GM is to present a believable fantasy world, something like Middle Earth, where sometimes even the good guys get killed. I'm happy to give players an edge, but not a free ride (even if they do everything right). Apart from this edge, I am neutral with regards to player fortune or misfortune. If at the end of a play session my players are happy that whatever took place was consistent with the world, whether ultimately this was good, bad, lucky or unlucky, then I've done my job.
I am going to argue that having an attack form against which there is no adequate defense (though it's not an instant kill) will add spice to the game. In the same way I'm going to argue that having some arbitrariness (not nonsensical) is also good for our (I emphasise our) game. There will be some magic in there which is inexplicable. To my mind, explicable magic is science, and I don't want to lose the magic of magic.
I think we both agree that a game is very much a contract between players and GM. Everyone wants to enjoy themselves, including the GM. I am putting together a set of house rules for the next campaign I run which I will put out as a discussion document before we begin. If we agree on this, the contract is signed, otherwise I will have to ammend until it is. There is no right or wrong beyond this.
Richard
Well, we seem to be having our own little debate on this thread - wonder if anyone else is going to join in :-)
Let me first of all say, though, that you're way overplaying the deadliness of the change I want to make to energy drain. I didn't actually say that I was against making undead a greater CR, BTW, and I feel I would add 1 on the basis of this change, so if you consider that a Wight is now CR 4, and you stick that as an encounter against a party of four 4th level characters (a slightly challenging encounter), it's unlikely to get more than one hit, which even if it hits someone with a low fortitude save only has a 15% chance of killing them. Hardly a case of roll 1d4-1 and that's how many characters are dead.
But, importantly, the characters know that this is one of those encounters against which there is no defence. It's just luck. Of course, sensible play still tilts the odds in your favour, but if you get hit then all you can do is hope that you make one of those saving throws.
I don't want to anything that is completely dependent on luck and going back to spectres they would hit someone, wait to see the results, rinse-repeat until the character/party was dead. They really don't have a reason not too. There us also the issue of there being spells that do energy drain. I would tag the BBEG with it every time. I think you want a more deadly game, which is fine, but a nothing in the game should be uncurable. How are you getting a a 15% number, and there are a lot of things players would rather leave along, but that does not mean it should have the affect of being that deadly. I hate vampires now, as a player, but I know I stand a chance of getting out alive. Players don't go vampire hunting in my games, not because I changed the rules but because it is just a really bad idea with the way I run monsters. Nobody knows your group like you do so your group may like it, but most people don't like seeing characters die that easily, the availability of information is not a bad thing. It really depends on how common adventurers are in your world. If they are far and few between the players may have to go out and do quest just to get information, but if there are quiet a few then someone may have fought monster X, and the information should be more readily available.
I think that there are players out there who want a world where if you do the right thing, you will succeed. Real life's not like that but then they're playing this game to get away from the vagaries and injustices of real life. The fantasy side in this sort of RPG extends beyond magic and dragons. Who am I to argue against what other people enjoy as players, however I don't enjoy this sort of thing as a GM because it seems to me you become little more than a foil for someone else's ego trip.
If you do the right thing you should succeed most of the time. Now sometimes the dice gods hate you that day, and that is what bad fortune represents to me. You should not have to go out of your way to make things harder. I would just run the game, and let the dice fall where they may. That is more than hard core enough for most people because I have had days where the entire party could not roll above a 10. Taking 3 hours in real life to kill goblins when we were level 7 was annoying because everyone kept rolling badly on another day. They almost killed us. Some days the players 1 round the boss due to lucky rolls. All this extra difficulty is normally handled by the law of averages.
What I like to do as a GM is to present a believable fantasy world, something like Middle Earth, where sometimes even the good guys get killed. I'm happy to give players an edge, but not a free ride (even if they do everything right). Apart from this edge, I am neutral with regards to player fortune or misfortune. If at the end of a play session my players are happy that whatever took place was consistent with the world, whether ultimately this was good, bad, lucky or unlucky, then I've done my job.
I am going to argue that having an attack form against which there is no adequate defense (though it's not an instant kill) will add spice to the game. In the same way I'm going to argue that having some arbitrariness (not nonsensical) is also good for our (I emphasise our) game. There will be some magic in there which is inexplicable. To my mind, explicable magic is science, and I don't want to lose the magic of magic.
I think we both agree that a game is very much a contract between players and GM. Everyone wants to enjoy themselves, including the GM. I am putting together a set of house rules for the next campaign I run which I will put out as a discussion document before we begin. If we agree on this, the contract is signed, otherwise I will have to ammend until it is. There is no right or wrong beyond this.Richard
I agree that there is no right or wrong beyond it because nobody should tell another person how to play, but some players don't have enough of an understanding about certain things so I would let them know how deadly the new version is, and how the "hit and wait" tactic could work against them rather than just do a "read and sign".
Let me first of all say, though, that you're way overplaying the deadliness of the change I want to make to energy drain.
I'm definitely not overplaying things here, especially not way overplaying.
I didn't actually say that I was against making undead a greater CR, BTW, and I feel I would add 1 on the basis of this change, so if you consider that a Wight is now CR 4, and you stick that as an encounter against a party of four 4th level characters (a slightly challenging encounter), it's unlikely to get more than one hit, which even if it hits someone with a low fortitude save only has a 15% chance of killing them. Hardly a case of roll 1d4-1 and that's how many characters are dead.
It still has a better ability to kill someone now - and it's about the weakest enemy using energy drain.
Even then, it has a decent chance to hit once, or maybe twice, and this one hit, coupled with a series of not-so-good luck, could easily kill someone.
It could get to a wizard or sorcerer (wights aren't stupid), and unless that wizard had time to prepare, his AC will be 14 tops (often less). That means the wight has a better-than-even chance to hit. The DC for energy drain would be 14. An arcanist of level 4 will probably have a fort bonus of anywhere between +1 to +5, so unless it's a really tough wizard, we have a better-than-even chance again to start the energy drain.
And the next round, the roll just became harder - even if the thing doesn't get a second hit in (which is not impossible - actually, its chances aren't too bad), which would mean that it would increase the DC for the energy drain (or have another shot at it if the first one succeeded).
Anyway, a not-so-tough wizard (not everyone min-maxes wizards to have awesome AC and really high fort saves) can easily be affected, and then it just takes a couple of rolls that are average, and the wizard is stone dead.
In fact, if there were 4 such encounters in that day (which is something 4th-level party is supposed to survive without any casualties), the chances that the arcanist dies are going from "possible" to "probably".
And remember, that was the weakest of the bunch.
But, importantly, the characters know that this is one of those encounters against which there is no defence. It's just luck.
And things that depend solely on luck, not on the choices of the players, are really, really bad.
I think that there are players out there who want a world where if you do the right thing, you will succeed. Real life's not like that but then they're playing this game to get away from the vagaries and injustices of real life.
Yeah, and they will hate this sort of stuff, since you're powerless in such situations.
People play RPGs to not be powerless.
What I like to do as a GM is to present a believable fantasy world, something like Middle Earth, where sometimes even the good guys get killed.
What does that have to do with arbitrary abilities? Characters still die in Pathfinder. I've seen characters die. I've had characters die. And no "Wheel of misfortune" - type mechanic had to get involved.
If at the end of a play session my players are happy that whatever took place was consistent with the world, whether ultimately this was good, bad, lucky or unlucky, then I've done my job.
No, you have not. If af the end of a play session, everyone had a good time, you've done your job.
While people usually like to have a consistent game world, it's only one of their concerns. Not being arbitrarily screwed over will almost every time take precedence over having a consistent world - and this isn't at all a question of a world that is consistent or not. Consistency has nothing at all to do with this. You can have believable, consistent worlds full of danger without such arbitrary mechanics.
I am going to argue that having an attack form against which there is no adequate defense (though it's not an instant kill) will add spice to the game.
I'm going to argue that it's one of those spices most players are allergic against.
In the same way I'm going to argue that having some arbitrariness (not nonsensical) is also good for our (I emphasise our) game.
Fine, do it in your games. If you and your players like it, then more power to you.
But you can't argue that this could replace the existing mechanics in the standard rules.
There will be some magic in there which is inexplicable. To my mind, explicable magic is science, and I don't want to lose the magic of magic.
You should really look up that science thing. While it hopes to explain everything, there are still mysteries to science. Not because they're inherently inexplicable, just because the knowledge DCs involved are too high and our scientists haven't been able to make them yet (to speak in PF terms).
I am putting together a set of house rules for the next campaign I run which I will put out as a discussion document before we begin. If we agree on this, the contract is signed, otherwise I will have to ammend until it is. There is no right or wrong beyond this.
Remember about informed consent, and that not all implications are always obvious to everyone.
|
|
Ok, I guess I really feel I've done this to death now (not literally :-) ).
To answer one question, the 15% came from, assume you have four levels, a +2 fortitude save and a DC 14 requirement. The chance to fail four saves is 55% x 60% x 65% x 70% = 15%.
The second point, about informed consent, I take on board. I shall make sure my players are fully appraised before they agree to anything.
Cheers
Richard
|
To answer one question, the 15% came from, assume you have four levels, a +2 fortitude save and a DC 14 requirement. The chance to fail four saves is 55% x 60% x 65% x 70% = 15%.
I hope that wight isn't accompanied by an evil cleric, and that he doesn't debuff the hapless target with Doom and Bestow Curse...then his chance to fail four saves is 85% x 90% x 95% x 95% = 69%. :)
Seriously, though, it's your game so you should play it however you and your players prefer it. As a player and a gamemaster, I find creatures with Energy Drain to be quite challenging enough as they are, thank you very much.
lots of good stuff similar to what I said
You must be a wise fella.
To answer one question, the 15% came from, assume you have four levels, a +2 fortitude save and a DC 14 requirement. The chance to fail four saves is 55% x 60% x 65% x 70% = 15%.
You keep touting this number as the only number for character death. This may be true for outright death in that particular combat, but think about this... how many players do you know would be willing to game for more than four sessions levels behind the rest of the party? Especially when they know that they started on an even keel and were drained because of "bad luck?" I've known people who claimed they would persevere through character hardships such as losing a limb or contracting lycanthropy, but when it became a real problem, gave in and rolled anew. When that happens, energy drain has claimed another victim, and didn't need to eat through the character's total Hit Dice to do it.
The second point, about informed consent, I take on board. I shall make sure my players are fully appraised before they agree to anything.
This can help avoid the former, but as I said, when a player is actually faced with their character's deficiencies in-game, you may see a different side of them.
People play RPGs to not be powerless.
This has been my experience. I started out as someone who wanted to DM people playing from NPC classes into their normal classes, so the game would be a challenge. Since then I've learned most people are just as happy if not more so playing Gestalt high-point buy. It's a bit more work designing encounters, but happier players means they bring better snacks to the table, so it's worth it.
Ok, I guess I really feel I've done this to death now (not literally :-) ).
To answer one question, the 15% came from, assume you have four levels, a +2 fortitude save and a DC 14 requirement. The chance to fail four saves is 55% x 60% x 65% x 70% = 15%.
The second point, about informed consent, I take on board. I shall make sure my players are fully appraised before they agree to anything.
Cheers
Richard
That math is not right at all. It actually gets harder every time not easier.
You would also have to do each class differently. Spectres are not stupid and neither are vampires. They will try to even the odds in many DM's games by taking out the caster's first. You also have to take into account the extra attacks that may take place. Such monsters would just use hit and run tactics kind of like the komodo dragon. At about 1:23 in the video it bites and just wanders off. A few days later the dragon shows up to get its dinner. If the buffalo had lived it just would have received a second bite. Even if you are going to be less tactical and fight the PC straight up dying off of one hit is not cool ever. It is ok in zombie movies because it is a movie, but if I were a player in your game I would just not fight them. There is almost always more than one way to solve a problem, and if I can avoid a one hit death that is the route I am taking.You came here asking for advice, and you have received it.
edit:The chance to fail would be the average of all the percentages. Since all of them are above 50 you can get a less than 50% failure rate assuming the numbers follow the math. 50+55+60+65\4=57.5
edit 2(another view): If they characters have a 50 chance to succeed, followed by a 45, 40, and 35% chance there is not way the chance to succeed is above 50%. Notice all I did was turn your chances to fail into chances to succeed.
fail/succeed
50/50
55/45
60/40
65/35
It seems the fails have it.
edit:The chance to fail would be the average of all the percentages. Since all of them are above 50 you can get a less than 50% failure rate assuming the numbers follow the math. 50+55+60+65\4=57.5edit 2(another view): If they characters have a 50 chance to succeed, followed by a 45, 40, and 35% chance there is not way the chance to succeed is above 50%. Notice all I did was turn your chances to fail into chances to succeed.
fail/succeed
50/50
55/45
60/40
65/35It seems the fails have it.
Not quite. What he's saying is the chance to fail all four saves in a row:
Chance 1: 11 or less on a D20 is a fail (assuming ties go to the player): 55%.Chance 2: They're suffering a -1 penalty now. So a 12 or less fails them: 60%.
Chance 3: Suffering a -2 penalty, 65%
Chance 4: 70%.
Net chance of all four failing in a row: 15.015%
The reason you don't just average them all is because they have to fail all of the saving throws in a row, and you only roll the next throw if the previous one failed. If you had to roll all of them and take the majority, the average method might apply. So the chance to fail all of them and die outright is still statistically smaller than 50%, but see my post above for why this statistic is intellectually deceptive.
edit:The chance to fail would be the average of all the percentages. Since all of them are above 50 you can get a less than 50% failure rate assuming the numbers follow the math. 50+55+60+65\4=57.5edit 2(another view): If they characters have a 50 chance to succeed, followed by a 45, 40, and 35% chance there is not way the chance to succeed is above 50%. Notice all I did was turn your chances to fail into chances to succeed.
fail/succeed
50/50
55/45
60/40
65/35It seems the fails have it.
Not quite. What he's saying is the chance to fail all four saves in a row:
Chance 1: 11 or less on a D20 is a fail (assuming ties go to the player): 55%.
Chance 2: They're suffering a -1 penalty now. So a 12 or less fails them: 60%.
Chance 3: Suffering a -2 penalty, 65%
Chance 4: 70%.Net chance of all four failing in a row: 15.015%
The reason you don't just average them all is because they have to fail all of the saving throws in a row, and you only roll the next throw if the previous one failed. If you had to roll all of them and take the majority, the average method might apply. So the chance to fail all of them and die outright is still statistically smaller than 50%, but see my post above for why this statistic is intellectually deceptive.
I see your point, but even if you only fail one of them you are crippled which means you can no longer handle APL level threats. A slow death(over several encounters) is not any better than a fast one. I am waiting to see how his group handles this though.
edited:for clarity
I see your point, but even if you only fail one of them you are crippled which means you can no longer handle APL level threats. A slow death(over several encounters) is not any better than a fast one. I am waiting to see how his group handles this though.
Slightly edited to, I think, get the gist of what you're trying to say.
That was basically what my above post was saying in not-so-absolute terms. Some players handle character adversity more gracefully than others. You won't know which ones until they actually face it though, regardless of what the player says or thinks.
This system is utterly abhorrent for reasons already described by the above posters.
If it were to be used, it would be less punishing to remove levels of experience from characters like in the old days. At least then you can catch up again due to the lower XP requirements relative to the party.
Permanent PF negative levels would cripple characters relative to their own CR forever. How would it feel to be carrying three negative levels as a spellcaster? You gain a new level of spells, but can't use them because of your incurable wounds. Sucks to be you.
As a DM you're just laughing in the face of your players and justifying it with paper-thin nostalgia.
|
|
I see I didn't make this very clear in my earlier post but my intention is to make all negative energy levels temporary and then, to quote myself:
"My feeling is to make losing a temporary energy level a DC 20 fortitude save every time you rest overnight - so assuming you do survive the encounter you just need to go away and rest for a bit."
Richard
I see I didn't make this very clear in my earlier post but my intention is to make all negative energy levels temporary and then, to quote myself:
"My feeling is to make losing a temporary energy level a DC 20 fortitude save every time you rest overnight - so assuming you do survive the encounter you just need to go away and rest for a bit."
Richard
If you're the wizard with the +2 Fortitude bonus and take 3 temporary negative levels, that's impossible to recover from (-3 penalty means max of 19) unless you house-rule that a 20 auto-succeeds or devote magical resources to fixing the problem.
Edit: Even if you only take 1 or 2 negative levels, having at best a 5% - 10% chance every night to remove the hindrance is a serious drain on time. "Taking 20" on saving throws really throws the campaign timeline for a loop, especially if the foes that did the damage got away instead of being defeated for good.
|
|
Rolling a 20 succeeds on a s.t. without house rule.
Maybe the DC should be 15 - not sure. Maybe you should get a bonus on your saving throw if you spend the night in a consecrated place.
I think you should be knackered for a while if you take energy drains, but not forever. Don't forget that with the rules as they currently stand, you have to pay 1K gp to get rid of one negative energy level per week.
Richard
I think you should be knackered for a while if you take energy drains, but not forever.
For me, "a while" is "part of a game session". Everything above that will quickly sour the campaign for me.
Every negative level is in many ways the equivalent of actually lagging a level behind: You have a penalty to attacks, saves, checks (which is often worse than just lagging behind one level), 5 hit points you can't get back (which isn't quite that bad unless you're low on HP), as well as, and this is the big one for many, an effective -1 to your class level(s). A wizard 5 with a negative level cannot use his 3rd-level spells, since he would have to be level 5 for that, and he's effectively level 4.
More than one level makes it even worse. You basically have to stick to weaker enemies, which means less XP (unless the GM is nice and gives you a circumstancial bonus to the XP you get, which probably won't happen) or be overwhelmed in fights your companions are right at home at.
And don't even think going into a boss fight with negative levels. If it's a proper boss fight, it's going to be a difficult one, and that negative level can turn difficult into deadly for you.
Don't forget that with the rules as they currently stand, you have to pay 1K gp to get rid of one negative energy level per week.
Not quite true:
This is one particular instance for when you cure a permanent negative level with restoration.In most cases (especially stuff like a vampire's energy drain attacks) you first gain (regular, temporary) negative levels. Restoration will get rid of all temporary negative levels for the low, low price of 100gp, and you can do it as often as you are able. Even if you don't, you have a chance to get rid of them with a save (and you could employ death ward at the right time to get rid of the penalty to get a better shot at removing them)
And even if all else fails and the levels beocme permanent, greater restoration can cure them all at once. A bit more expensive, sure, but you're not necessarily stuck with multiple permanent negative levels.
|
|
This is one particular instance for when you cure a permanent negative level with restoration.In most cases (especially stuff like a vampire's energy drain attacks) you first gain (regular, temporary) negative levels. Restoration will get rid of all temporary negative levels for the low, low price of 100gp, and you can do it as often as you are able. Even if you don't, you have a chance to get rid of them with a save (and you could employ death ward at the right time to get rid of the penalty to get a better shot at removing them)
And even if all else fails and the levels beocme permanent, greater restoration can cure...
Yes, I understand, but don't forget that in my system you get a saving throw the instant you are hit, and if you make it you don't gain any sort of negative energy level. With pathfinder as it stands you get no save at all against temporary negative energy levels.
Any none of my negative energy levels are permanent. It's just that the only way to get rid of them is by resting.
I would also like to add, BTW, that I'm getting rid of Enervation and Energy Drain. Negating Energy levels will be purely in the province of undead.
Richard
You asked for opinions, so here is mine.
Don't do it.
I remember many moons ago in the time of the IBM PC... The Gold Box "Pool of Radiance" and Valhingen Graveyard across the river from Phlan (The Town That Trumps Custard!)... I would not go into that place until I could win fights as fast as possible (I did this mission only just before going into the main keep/endgame) and *any* time the Wights hit me I would go back to the previous save. And I saved after every fight.
Permanent, unsavable, progressive, undefendable, uncurable damage is *not* a good way to improve play. This is not a player entitlement issue, this is a "I don't let you punch me in the face and call it fun" issue. Tough challenging adventures are possible without using what (you asked for opinions) feels like a cock-on-the-dung-heap-a'crowin player beat down.
But then again, some people are masochists and might give your proposed method a go. *shrug* To each his/her/its own.
GNOME
|
|
Permanent, unsavable, progressive, undefendable, uncurable damage is *not* a good way to improve play. This is not a player entitlement issue, this is a "I don't let you punch me in the face and call it fun" issue. Tough challenging adventures are possible without using what (you asked for opinions) feels like a c%@~-on-the-dung-heap-a'crowin player beat down.But then again, some people are masochists and might give your proposed method a go. *shrug* To each his/her/its own
I think you're getting a bit personal there. If someone doesn't agree with you that doesn't make them masochists.
I know this is an emotive issue, and I've been impressed with the way that this discussion has stayed polite and objective. I wasn't going to comment any more but I know from experience that if someone on a forum like this throws mud and it sticks, other people tend to join in.
Richard
Just my 2 cents on this.
Any time I've had a character lose permanent levels and couldn't get them restored, the character was retired and I rolled a new one. It's not worth it to fall behind.