Save or Die Spells: Keep Them Out of PvP Please

[Andius]

CoopTang wrote:

Back to the spells per day idea. The developers have already said they are speeding up game time to 1/4 time. So if a wizard requires 8 hours of rest normally, they would require two hours in this game.

People play games to play them. Not to sit around 2 hours and wait for spells to recharge.

Remember that part in pen and paper D&D where you and your whole party sat there and waited for 8 hours while your characters rested? Neither do I. The DM just skips on to the next event whether it be something the person on watch spotted that night or the next morning.

Remember that part in a campaign where you fought 20 encounters in one day? Neither do I. Usually you only run into a few encounters per day, helping balance out spells per day as a system. You know you aren't going to be fighting wave after wave of enemy so you know as long as you don't go crazy you'll have enough spells to get you through the day. In an MMO you WILL be fighting wave after wave because you can't just, skip to the next fight. The game is therefore going to throw more of them at you to keep you entertained.

Remember that part in a campaign where your party and that other party of players faced off? Neither do I. That is why things like save or die are balanced in pen and paper D&D. They were never intended to be used on other players.

Having a class that has to wait two hours to recharge their spells but can one shot other players is a HORRIBLE idea for a MMO. Nobody wants to sit around and let their spells recharge for two hours, and nobody is going to find it fun with the masochists who do run up to them and just straight up kill them. Its not fun mechanics, its not balanced mechanics. Pen and paper RPGs just can't be transferred straight into MMOs. Major concepts and ideas from them can... but it can't just be a cut and paste.

[Nihimon]

I expect the actual method of preparing spells (if that's even relevant) and powering spells is one of those things that's going to be significantly changed from the P&P.

[Cruciare]

Ha!

I see this post on ALL betas I get into :p

Same arguments ... different abilities is all.

Anyone remember city of heroes before PvP was added in?

Was a pretty fun game before then :)

Not saying I dont like to get my PvP on -

I just dont think all games need to revolve around it.

Hrmmm ... just remembered where I am and the fact that the creators all enjoy the game EvE.

Nevermind. Nothing to see here, move along.

[Andius]

Cruciare wrote:

Ha!

I see this post on ALL betas I get into :p

Same arguments ... different abilities is all.

Anyone remember city of heroes before PvP was added in?

Was a pretty fun game before then :)

Not saying I dont like to get my PvP on -

I just dont think all games need to revolve around it.

Hrmmm ... just remembered where I am and the fact that the creators all enjoy the game EvE.

Nevermind. Nothing to see here, move along.

You need to read up on the plans for the game. Players will be able to engage eachother at random all over the map. If you are in a lawful area the guards will come in to help but basically this game is the wild west. PVP can happen anywhere, anytime, for any reason.

With that in mind EVERYTHING needs to be looked at from the prism of how it will effect PVP before it is implemented. That may not be true for every game but it is certainly true here. Like in SWTOR PVE abilities should all be given purpose for PVP so it isn't just your PVE or your PVP build. Its your build, and you can use it 100% of the time.

Instant-kills would be broken in PVP and I don't think we should have entire super-powerful abilities that are PVE only. So leave them out of the game. The ONLY acceptable way I can see insta-kill abilities implemented is if they insta-kill most NPCs and just do a high amount of damage to other players and more powerful boss-like NPCs. Save or die = broken crap.

[Cruciare]

Andius wrote:

You need to read up on the plans for the game. Players will be able to engage eachother at random all over the map. If you are in a lawful area the guards will come in to help but basically this game is the wild west. PVP can happen anywhere, anytime, for any reason.

With that in mind EVERYTHING needs to be looked at from the prism of how it will effect PVP before it is implemented. That may not be true for every game but it is certainly true here. Like in SWTOR PVE abilities should all be given purpose for PVP so it isn't just your PVE or your PVP build. Its your build, and you can use it 100% of the time.

Instant-kills would be broken in PVP and I don't think we should have entire super-powerful abilities that are PVE only. So leave them out of the game. The ONLY acceptable way I can see insta-kill abilities implemented is if they insta-kill most NPCs and just do a high amount of damage to other players and more powerful boss-like NPCs. Save or die = broken crap.

I read up on the game and I know that this will be a PvP based game with some adventuring thrown in here and there.

now to the subject at hand-

As Pathfinder is 3.5 DnD based there were some save or die spells in the game. The vast majority that were in 2.0 and 3.0 were taken out and changed to heavy damage rather than save or die.
Of the few that are left, these are pretty high level and sure, in a MMO would be broken. I don't expect to see these.

The point of my post was that I see this nearly exact same post on all message boards no matter the type of game.

This was more a sarcastic/snarky comment than anything else poking fun at the same pvp arguments that always seem to crop up.

My apologies for my snarky post.

[Onishi]

Andius wrote:

Instant-kills would be broken in PVP and I don't think we should have entire super-powerful abilities that are PVE only. So leave them out of the game. The ONLY acceptable way I can see insta-kill abilities implemented is if they insta-kill most NPCs and just do a high amount of damage to other players and more powerful boss-like NPCs. Save or die = broken crap.

I think it also should be pointed out that save or dies, are equally wrong/broken in PVE. Most DM's generally grant any boss they don't want to see go down in 1 round death ward etc...

Heck DDO which kept most of the save or dies from 3.5, at the same time made it so that any enemy that is a boss, and all enemies on epic difficulty are outright immune to save or die spells, more or less just making the spells pointless obnoxious things that are designed to instikill, anything that you could 1-2 shot normally.

[Richard_Sharpe]

Apologies for resurrecting this old thread, but I am struggling with the very same problem and I found all the above discussion to be interesting and stimulating.

Basically, my problem is more plot-related than game-related. I will explain.

My players do not really make PvP and PvM distinctions. These concepts came along after MMORPGs became a thing... fact is, all monsters are potential NPCs, in the sense you can still have a dialogue with a Troll or even an Aboleth, if you get my rationale. This follows from a couple of things:
[1] My players always tend to find peaceful solutions to conflicts. They roleplay every inch until they get into a fight;
[2] Throughout the campaign, I have hurled at them all sorts of things -- and many, many things with Class levels.
Actually, my PC's worst enemies are their own peers who, for some reasons I do not have time to explain, hold grudges or are trying to manipulate them.

So, even if most of these adversaries are full-fledged NPCs, we are not talking town guards, but actual characters with their own personality and motives.

Every time instant-powers were used, they immediately became the triggers of broader plots and spin-offs. Is a character player being dominated against his will? Better not tell the other players, so we can organize something together to surprise them... etc.

To the above tenure of gaming, we should add a couple of home rules that have somehow lasted in the past 15 years.
[a] Since players felt like having somewhat realistic combat, we do not confirm critical hits. We just roll damage and go with it. I am aware this is extremely deadly (indeed!), but that's their request and I am happy to oblige.
[b] Another thing players do not like is "piece-of-cake" kudos and gifts such as wishes, resurrections, and any magical help in general. This means that ***plot-wise and world-wise***, magic is quite a rarity and it comes with burdens and other aspects that make it difficult or expensive to access.

Point [b] meant, for example, that when we started the game resurrection was not a thing. It became a thing after the players "discovered" it in game by means of retrieving an ancient artefact. They decided to give it to some clerics, but the Church turned their back onto players and now they refuse to use the spell (even though they have copied it) for theological reasons. Something similar occurred with teleport spells.

So, my qualm is: should I act the same when it comes with insta-kill spells? Shall I make them a rarity? Shall I restrict their use?

The reason I am wondering about this is that I currently have NPCs who both have:
- Motive
- Means
To kill the players... but of course I want to "challenge" the players, and not just pop up, teleport, and wipe them out by exploiting all their weaknesses at once.

## Conclusion ##

Let us give for granted that I am not playing the game "as it was meant to be". We give roleplaying a priority.

Now, could someone help me come up for reasons to diminish/limit/etc. the insta-death spells "in game" (that is, within the world characters live in... not as a matter of tweaking the handbook rules)?

E.g.: some action-reaction mechanism that attracts Evil outsider whenever you use such a spell, etc...

[KarlBob]

Richard_Sharpe wrote:

Apologies for resurrecting this old thread, but I am struggling with the very same problem and I found all the above discussion to be interesting and stimulating.

Basically, my problem is more plot-related than game-related. I will explain.

... (snip) ...

## Conclusion ##

Let us give for granted that I am not playing the game "as it was meant to be". We give roleplaying a priority.

Now, could someone help me come up for reasons to diminish/limit/etc. the insta-death spells "in game" (that is, within the world characters live in... not as a matter of tweaking the handbook rules)?

E.g.: some action-reaction mechanism that attracts Evil outsider whenever you use such a spell, etc...

Richard_Sharpe, you might get more responses to your question in another section of the Paizo forums. The discussion in this area is specifically about Pathfinder Online, the MMO that Goblinworks has been working on for several years now. I think that if you brought up these points in the Advice section, or in Pathfinder RPG General Discussion, it could spark a lively debate.

[Kileanna]

I aggree with KarlBob that you should copypaste your post in a new Thread. This is a very interesting point and I'd like to give my opinion but this seems like the wrong place.

I felt recognized in your post because my group is similar to what you described, and I have disliked Save or Die spells for a long time, as I thought they only served the purpose of instant killing party members with no benefit for the story.

Now I've started to think in a different way. I still don't enjoy games with a lot of Save or Die spells because they are too random. But I see some good points in using them:
-Knowing in advance that you are facing a creature with SoD effects encourages tactical planning, creative tactics, and preparing in advance to avoid these effects. Discussing how to face this creatures can be a good roleplaying options and if the group prepares well for the fight it's quite unlikely that they'll be affected. If they are unnaffected then they are gaining tactical advantage as the enemy has wasted a turn.
-Back in 3.X a character death wasn't a good thing. You lost character levels, what sucked. Now that the consequences are less permanent a character death can be an opportunity to further the story. In my most recent game, RoW, we had more PC and NPC deaths than in any other game I can remember. None of them were planned in advance, all of them were mostly random, but we found the way of making them part of the story and each time they added more depht to it.
-Resurrections can be pretty thematic too. Each time we had to resurrect a character, it was different and special. I don't like making resurrections something trivial. Before, I didn't even like to use in my game, but I've realized that, doing it well, it's another roleplaying opportunity.

The deaths and resurrections in Row::

First, as an element to understand the full story, the Fighter in my party and my Witch are lovers. My character is a changeling looking for her place in the World. The Fighter is a noblewoman who knows that she'd have to marry a noble man someday.

First death. We were fighting a Hag Coven. One of the hags was my character's mother and the whole fight was above our posibilities (but the GM trusted that we'd be able to do it anyway and we did). We were overwhelmed and the Fighter was killed while protecting us all. My character went almost berserker seeing her die in the hands of her mother's coven.
The resurrection was also significative. We didn't have access to any resurrection spells at that time, but a NPC had. We had been into trouble with her but, being hesrtbroken for her loss herself, my character convinced her to reconcile with her lover (look for Jadrenka's and Marislova's story for more details) and she aggreed to use a resurrection spell on the Fighter as a token of gratitude for that. So everything made sense in the story and it was very significative. Since then my character became overly protective with the party because she feared they could die.

Next death. The Fighter and the Witch had come to an aggreement to end their relationship because of the Fighter's obligations. Both were low in morale and a bit unmotivated. First fight in the 5th book: 2 enemies with Phantasmal Killer. He targeted us both, the two characters with the highest saves in the group, the spell allows two saves to avoid. We fail our rolls and die. Both at a time. We shouldn't have failed but we did, it wasn't difficult to explain the failure by our characters lack of motivation at that time. We were resurrected by a Cyclic Reincarnation next time, which meant new body, new life. My Witch grew up a few years (she was very young and immature) and gained some maturity and perspective from her death. She couldn't allow herself to be down or unmotivated because there were lifes at stake. She grew up to be a much stronger woman.
The Fighter was reincarnated into a younger body. At first she was pissed for having died twice and felt like she was weak. But in the end, she felt that having a new life and a younger body allowed her to start from zero and also gave her more time to deal with her responsabilities so she felt more free and relieved from pressure. Both changed significantly after dying.

Next one. Our Wizard has very weak physical scores so he depends heavily on magic and staying away from combat. But he was the one who could cast Antimagic Field and we really needed it. He knew he was going to die by doing it but was willing to sacrifice himself. His backstory is that he was going to be a knight but caught a grave disease as a child and the sequels left him too weak to even lift a sword, so he devoted to magic as a way to help the knighthood. This was his knightly sacrifice.
You can think it wasn't such a sacrifice, as resurrections exist. But he is married to a NPC who has a strong opinion against resurrecting people and he stated that if she didn't want to have him back he didn't want to be resurrected. So he didn't expect to be returned to life. We had to roleplay to convince his wife to allow us to resurrect him, and it wasn't easy, but even if we had him back it had a strong impact in both the Wizard and the NPC.

And that are only the PC deaths. We had also some relevant NPC deaths that also had an impact on the campaign.

So, seeing how meaningful we managed to make this deaths, I am now less against removing SoD spells and more in favor of making it fit the story and trying to make all deaths significative for the story.

Of course it means that if you have a lot of deaths the impact for them will be minimized so I'd rather keep them to a minimum anyway.

Sorry for the long post. I tend to get too excited when telling anecdotes and end writing too much.