|
Threatened? How do you mean?
You're constantly struggling against the Hold Person, making a save to end it every round. Why do you get ANOTHER save just because someone is about to stab you? You may not be able to even SEE him if he is behind you. And if you CAN see him, why can't you make another save ANY time someone is about to stab/shoot you, no matter if it's a CdG?
|
|
It's more of a balance issue than anything. The additional save wouldn't break the effect, just prevent it from being exploited in a specific but devastating manner.
Isn't CdG the real problem? What's the difference between doing it to a held person and doing it to a sleeping person? The fact that you can't try again?
As would I, but the Hold person combo is much cheaper. All it takes is an ally to be adjacent to only one attacker. Talking is a free action, in game you could tell him to attack 'on my mark'. And bam, easy setup.Hold person has a lower save DC and requires a standard action, a full round action, and either an ally positioned in the correct location or multiple failed saves. And no enemies interfering.
Given the choice, I'd take phantasmal killer 100 times out of 100 for pure save-or-die purposes.
And all it takes to stop it is an ally adjacent to you to hit that guy with an AoO which could be a Disarm and whoops no CdG.
Heck even ranged chars can make AoO's now so if a Zen archer or Snapshot Archer is close enough your at least getting shot and your buddy might not even be able to cast.
|
|
No, I meant actually sneaking up on a sleeping person and stabbing them.
To nitpick, you're not changing the spell, you're making a new rule about CdG, specifically that held enemies get Will saves to negate CdGs. I would be expecting other situations that make you helpless (like being bound with ropes, I think) would allow Reflex saves to negate the CdG and turn it into a normal hit.
Actually I am and i am responding in the way you have been for every reason someone gives why its not that viable you have a counter tactic so i am posting tactics that counter your counters.
Actually I am and i am responding in the way you have been for every reason someone gives why its not that viable you have a counter tactic so i am posting tactics that counter your counters.You're right, I should just agree with you whenever you say anything, regardless of whether you're right or wrong.
You are obviously an expert when it comes to constructive conversation. I might even go as far to say that you're the best of all time.
No but you aren't dicussing either when you simple move the goal post each arguement. You have been shown several times over the reasons why this is not only not as you put it a BS combo or a S@#$ty spell but not even a tactic that would be used in combat unless your goal as the GM is to out and out kill your party.
Ghouls are just as deadly at a lower CR but your reasoning is the party might know they are ghouls but that the spell caster is somehow a problem since the party can't know what he plans on doing until he is doing it.
|
|
John holds, caster casts hp, john smash. Not a damn thing anybody can do.
Victim's ally disarms John with his Attack of Opportunity. Possibly at range thanks to new archetypes/feats.
So there is at least ONE thing that can be done.
Balance is subjective. Stop trying to 'prove' that your idea of it is the 'right' one.
Isn't CdG the real problem? What's the difference between doing it to a held person and doing it to a sleeping person? The fact that you can't try again?
CdG isn't the real problem. Weapons are the real problem. If the world had no weapons (and no magic, for that matter) Hold Person couldn't be exploited to the same degree.
In fact, if there was no violent tendencies at all... people are the real problem. We should get rid of them. All they ever do is try to kill eachother. :(
So what you're saying is that Grease should allow for an extra save?
Only if used to inconvenience someone :(
interesting debate but in my experanice i only use hold person when i want to stop the target doing something like sounding an alarm but other wise to take out a target unless yu need silance it seems like a bit of a waste of time as is a 3rd lvl spell for mage/sor so for just killing stuff i would go the fireball or lighting bolt route as you can effect a group of targets only one save and even when they make the save most take some damage which softens then up for the fighters
The biggest issue is the DC. I mean, I know it's a finisher. But in situations where a cdg is 'cheap', its certainly an instakill.
Isn't that its point, though? To be the kill. If you think some character is getting it too cheap (particularly your NPCs), then find ways to prevent it from being taken cheaply... or choose not to take it or not to take it so cheaply. Don't play your NPCs like they're a well-oiled combat rules-exploiting machines using a hive mind. Play them like individuals who may not always know immediately what the others are doing and thinking.
|
Actually I am and i am responding in the way you have been for every reason someone gives why its not that viable you have a counter tactic so i am posting tactics that counter your counters.You're right, I should just agree with you whenever you say anything, regardless of whether you're right or wrong.
You are obviously an expert when it comes to constructive conversation. I might even go as far to say that you're the best of all time.
Dude it sounds like you are all mad cause we dont agree with you.
I also agree with a previous poster that I have not seen this tactic used as prevalent as you have/do. So maybe the problem is not the combo, but that you plan on using it as often as you do.
You mentioned that you like difficult but fair fights, well this is a difficult but fair tactic. It you use it as often as it sounds like you do the players will have had a chance to adjust how they work in battles.
If you do not like the tactic, don't use it...but don't storm in here pretending to ask for opinions and when they are not to your liking start telling people they are wrong for not thinking the same as you.
|
|
You know what? I'll throw you a bone. I will make ONE last on-topic post. Anything after that will involve shocker lizards and erotica.
The reason why the combo is easy to pull off is this:
All it takes.
Is one spellcaster, and one of his 2-5 party members to be in, or adjacent to, a square that's threatened by only one enemy.
The spellcaster, on the aforementioned player's turn can say, "hey, John attack on my mark!" Whereas John would respond, "LOL K".
John holds, caster casts hp, john smash. Not a damn thing anybody can do.
Also, many dms run monsters on the same turn... or it works out naturally. This is an easy to set up combo; so easy that I can set it up without intending to.
MY players expect no mercy. So yes, I will be "a dick" to them. That's why rules exist. To bring limits (like how easily I kill players) into the game and make it FAIR and BALANCED.
That is all.
I gotta ask why your players are not using the same super effective tactic against all your baddies? Or at least teh BBEG?
Hold person works but it is a single target spell that requires another ally to help out preferably with a weapon with decent crit damage or Sneak Attack, but it is likely to be a wasted round, and there are likely allies that have a chance to react before a bad guy tries to kill their friend.
The bad guy might try to kill the PC with a normal hit and leave a move action to act or just ignore him to deal with more urgent threats.
I removed a post. Don't post angry.
I serious doubt that hold person was designed so creatures can instantly kill another creature.Exploitable game mechanics, just by existing, cheapen the game.
Instead of listing off arbitrary 'counters' to this combo, somebody tell me why sleep and hold person should be able to be exploited as kill spells?
I seriously doubt you are correct in your doubts. Sleep and Hold Person have been around a very long time and they've been intended to be opponent neutralizers since the very first. But keep in mind that term is neutralize. Because the spells themselves are non-lethal, the final decision on how to handle the sleeping or held target is deferred. You can insta-kill them (something PCs have been doing since the very first edition in which those spells debuted), capture them, or leave them alone until the spell wears off or they wake up.
You're focusing on the wrong thing. I never said it's a fool proof combo.
The point I was trying to make was that, unless your party members are specifically designed to counter the combo (there are many builds that will scoff at hold person, but many more that won't), there will be many times when it will be very easy to pull off... without giving anybody a chance.
I serious doubt that hold person was designed so creatures can instantly kill another creature.
Exploitable game mechanics, just by existing, cheapen the game.
Instead of listing off arbitrary 'counters' to this combo, somebody tell me why sleep and hold person should be able to be exploited as kill spells?
Or tell my why making it so that a player can't be cdg'd in his first round of being helpless is a bad idea.
Characters don't need to be built to counter this combo, any more than than a Fighter "needs" to be built to shore up their Will saves, a Wizard "needs" to be built to avoid getting hit in combat, or a Paladin "needs" to be built so as to not get screwed over by the types of DMs that like visiting alignment threads.
Exploitable game mechanics don't cheapen the game by their existence, they cheapen the game by their abuse.
I can point out a number of cases in fiction where, while it's not exactly "Hold Person" which combines with a CdG to kill a character, the same general sentiment applies... and it's not considered a cop-out by the writers when it happens.
If that's not an example of an awesome "Hold Person - CdG" combo, I don't know what is.
It's if it gets abused EVERY combat that it becomes an issue. This type of combo is usually kept at bay as a "Gentleman's Agreement" at the tables I play in. Players don't use it, GMs don't use it.
Doesn't mean it's not a good combo, doesn't mean the combo itself is broken. It means that my fellow players and GMs don't like to use that combo, or ones like it.
"Gentleman's Agreements" aside, is it appropriate for the occasional BBEG to use against the party? Sure is! Is it appropriate for him, prior to the battle, to instruct a squad of Goblins to run up and CdG the first Adventurer to "freeze"? Sure is!
Is it appropriate for PCs to use against that same BBEG, if the opportunity presents itself? Sure is! That's no cheaper than a character with a Vorpal Sword and a tendency to roll critical strikes.
It's when someone's spamming "Hold Person" in EVERY combat, or when it becomes a standard strategy for EVERY NPC party out there, that it becomes an issue... but if every fight a party starts out with has a wizard throwing "Hold Person", the party would develop countering tactics pretty quickly (rings of counterspell, archer cohorts, etc).
I'm trying to stress the fact that nobody should be able to do it.
Why not?
|
|
In the first round of being affected they have not completely succumb to the effects. While they may fall over or freeze in place, in those first few seconds they're not completely 'helpless'.
What about other spells that inflict conditions on a failed save? Flesh to Stone? Do those have to wait a round to take hold? Why is this one single spell different from all the others?
Flesh to stone is designed to permanently and instantly turn a being into stone. Spells with death effects are designed to instantly kill. Both are considerably more powerful and expensive spells.
How about Deep Slumber (put 10HD of creatures to sleep), or Suggestion (Opponent put down their weapons, sits down and crochets doilies for 1 hour per caster level)? Both are the same wizard level, school, and rough cost (all of them could be "Eschew Materials"'d away, EXCEPT for perhaps Hold Person).
EDIT: As a matter of fact, not only is Hold Person the only one that allows multiple saves, but it should also be noted that Suggestion can actually offer save penalties, depending on how reasonable the suggestion is ("Sit down, let me buy you a beer, friend").
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's more of a balance issue than anything. The additional save wouldn't break the effect, just prevent it from being exploited in a specific but devastating manner.
My disconnect with you is that you see this as an exploit, and I see it as what this spell is for.
Otherwise it'd inflict Dazed or Stunned or something that didn't make you helpless.