Well its a 5th level spell, so of course it'll come up at 9-10ish. It allows two saves, fort is often the good save for a lot of big bad guys(con rises quickly with size too!), and even if they fail the first and make the second some baddies can still make use of their powers, in particular supernatural. Lots of ways to get rerolls, depends on the class though.
Edit: In the case of save or dies, sometimes it helps to talk to the group and talk about how they can sap the fun out of things and keep them to a minimal or not used at all. Same goes for both sides, you as a DM and them as players. They probably wouldn't like it if you were spamming save or dies on their party either, or spells like feeblemind and so on.
I have rarely ever had a big bad guy fail both saves for this spell. They usually either have a large fort save or a high will save. If they pass the fort, then no problem. If they fail the fort but pass the will, then you have a spellcasting (or other types of powers, like hexes) chicken that can still cause problems for the PC's.
|
I had my group cast this on a Rampaging Redcap and turned it into a kitten. Failed both saves and now they have a very hard kitten following them around … The sorceress wants to take it as a familiar …
If you prevent this then you also need to prevent the Witches Slumber hex, Circle of death, power word kill etc. You are taking all the fun out of it.
I like the “because it would be lame” rule idea. All the plusses in the world however don’t protect you when you roll a 1.
You don’t want to take out the one trick they have been building up their characters for. Everyone has to shine sometimes … Today it’s the heroes; yesterday it was the BBEG.
Adventuring is dangerous as is being a BBEG. Expect to die or in this case turned into a chicken.
Sic
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mess with it. You forgot his spell resistance not the players. You rolled poorly, not the players. If you want to roleplay it out a bit, let him get a reputation of a "powerful caster" and let other wizards seek the player out for a duel.
The players should be able to do stuff like that, enjoy the enjoyment of your players. My players still talk about the death attack that killed a BBEG 5 years ago. I rolled a one, but my guys loved it.
Didn't know the Ring of Delayed Doom existed. Might be a good item for many powerful BBEGs to possess. Of course, only with 1 or 2 uses available that way it's not delaying too many things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bead of newt prevention is cheap and great for things like this, particularly when the REAL villain watched his two lackeys get turned into chickens from the safety of his crystal ball and now knows what to expect.
My sorceress carries more than one.
|
Last night, I played with a GM who was excited about challenging our party with a roc with the advanced template. His plan was to use flyby attack with 80' movement, scoop up a party member with +31 grapple, and carry him off. My summoner's eidolon was utterly useless, but the GM needed to roll a 6 to beat my DC 16 slow. He rolled a 1, so the roc was slowed to 40' and could not use flyby attack. The musket master pasted it with a full attack the next round when it used all of its movement just to approach.
Actually the idea of because it is lame works quite well for what I need. Maybe +3 on round 1 going down by one each round. Also, like an idiot I forgot he had cast spell resistance.
Perhaps you could consider just talking to the player about save or lose/die spells and possibly re-work the character then simply giving an arbitrary +3 bonus to saves of bad guys? Nothing sucks more as a caster then to have bad guys make their saves over and over. If you are unhappy with the possibility of bad guys getting taken down in one shot, work something out with your player instead of just passive aggressively upping saves out of spite.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit I hate save or die spells both as a GM. When I use them against PCs they tend to get bored as their character is out for 7 rounds. It's not any better when they use it against BBEG who can't act a single round because he is dazed for 7 whole rounds.
They often make fights trivial, but they are part of the game. If players can polymorph BBEG, eventually BBEG will use similar spell on them.
|
My players still talk about the death attack that killed a BBEG 5 years ago. I rolled a one, but my guys loved it.
Yeah, in my first PF campaign a powerful advanced wyvern we were about to fight botched a save against a death attack before it even got a turn. Best part? The character who killed the legendary wyvern in a single blow was the barbarian's awakened monkey assassin cohort.
Sometimes it's fun to get the BBEG with a quick save-or-die. If you find that one character is overusing them (reducing fun) then I'd recommend asking them up-front to tone it down.
I admit I hate save or die spells both as a GM. When I use them against PCs they tend to get bored as their character is out for 7 rounds. It's not any better when they use it against BBEG who can't act a single round because he is dazed for 7 whole rounds.
They often make fights trivial, but they are part of the game. If players can polymorph BBEG, eventually BBEG will use similar spell on them.
They're only part of the game if you want them to be. You can ban anything you like. This is a good example of a spell I would definitely remove from the game on both sides.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
removing balefull polymorph is not the same as the bad guy buying the bead of newt prevention or getting a ring of spell turning.
If the players are making a habit of using ONE particular spell-then word is getting around in an AP and the monsters will start preparing for it if they have intelligence. THey are 10th level-they would be becoming well known.
Why? if you are removing Baleful Polymorph then you best be ready to get rid of Flesh to Stone, Dominate Person(Monster), Charm Person, (Mass) Suggestion, Plane Shift, Dazing Spell Metamagic, Polymorph any Object and a whole host of other spells.
I have no problem with that. If a spell breaks the game or makes it less fun, get rid of it. Simple as that.
Why? if you are removing Baleful Polymorph then you best be ready to get rid of Flesh to Stone, Dominate Person(Monster), Charm Person, (Mass) Suggestion, Plane Shift, Dazing Spell Metamagic, Polymorph any Object and a whole host of other spells.I have no problem with that. If a spell breaks the game or makes it less fun, get rid of it. Simple as that.
The problem is that you're not getting rid of a spell; you're getting rid of a battalion of them.
Why not simply say "everyone play a fighter without bonus feats," then?
Why? if you are removing Baleful Polymorph then you best be ready to get rid of Flesh to Stone, Dominate Person(Monster), Charm Person, (Mass) Suggestion, Plane Shift, Dazing Spell Metamagic, Polymorph any Object and a whole host of other spells.I have no problem with that. If a spell breaks the game or makes it less fun, get rid of it. Simple as that.The problem is that you're not getting rid of a spell; you're getting rid of a battalion of them.
Why not simply say "everyone play a fighter without bonus feats," then?
You do realize that slippery slope is a fallacy, right?
If you can't see any value to removing broken game elements, then I really have nothing to say to you.
You do realize that slippery slope is a fallacy, right?
The problem is that you're not getting rid of a spell; you're getting rid of a battalion of them.Why not simply say "everyone play a fighter without bonus feats," then?
And so is the Fallacist's Fallacy.
If you can't see any value to removing broken game elements, then I really have nothing to say to you.
Save-or-lose spells aren't broken game elements. Bad encounter design is the broken element here. Basically, you're proposing that the GM punish the players for the fact that the GM can't design adventures.
I have no problem with a fighter hitting mook on 2 but when he does the same on the CR+3 shield fighter who is invested fully in defense it is time for a rebuild.
Yes, but whose rebuild? Are you punishing your player because he can build a more effective attacker than you can a defender?
Why not simply say "everyone play a fighter without bonus feats," then?
If I had to guess, its because there is a ridiculously large difference between getting rid of save or dies because they kill the thrill and telling everyone to player fighters without bonus feats.
Lots of solutions, from ensuring that every boss from this point on has a specific magic item, to talking to the group, to a group agreed ban on save or dies, to possibly adding a mechanic to keep bosses from being insta-gibbed without a save. All viable, but personally I think talking to the group is best.
You do realize that slippery slope is a fallacy, right?
The problem is that you're not getting rid of a spell; you're getting rid of a battalion of them.Why not simply say "everyone play a fighter without bonus feats," then?
And so is the Fallacist's Fallacy.
Save-or-lose spells aren't broken game elements. Bad encounter design is the broken element here. Basically, you're proposing that the GM punish the players for the fact that the GM can't design adventures.
If you can't see any value to removing broken game elements, then I really have nothing to say to you.
*epic double-reverse facepalm*
Please stop talking to me.
Wow, lots of hate here.
I have to agree with Azixirad on this though. If a spell is causing you problems now; just wait until later. It's only a level 5 spell which means it can be beaten or over come; just like disintegrate.
There are a multitude of ways to make the spell ineffectual with out punishing the players; my favorite way? Sub-Bosses. Any big bad boss guy has underlings no matter what their alignment or objective is. Sub-Bosses are those really annoying guys that aren't really powerful but powerful enough to force a group to use some resources to beat.
The higher the level of the boss the more Sub-Bosses you can put out there. My favorite adventure to run has a total of 8 Sub-Bosses but the campaign is also designed to take you from level 10 to level 25. At a level 10 campaign I would probably have 1 or 2 of these guys around. You can even make it a boss that the players had to fight before; nothing pulls a group of adventurers together like running into that one guy they had to fight and beat before... only he's stronger now.
As long as you're not running a one night campaign, give the bad guy an exit plan. The players kick down the door to the evil wizards study only to set off a very nasty trap, which they can survive or maybe not, and find a note from the bad guy mocking them. So that save-or-die spell that the magic user has been saving up in place of a spell that has some flexibility to it was wasted, and you have a plot hook for them to follow or a loose end that could come and bite them in the butt later.
I have no problem with a fighter hitting mook on 2 but when he does the same on the CR+3 shield fighter who is invested fully in defense it is time for a rebuild.Yes, but whose rebuild? Are you punishing your player because he can build a more effective attacker than you can a defender?
An issue here might be that not punishing the one player who can out-powergame the GM, and instead choosing to fight back by building a better defender can sometimes be unfair to the rest of the group. If keeping up with the one guy who can hit that CR+3 shield fighter with lots of AC on every roll aside from natural 1 means that now the other 3+ players can't hit the enemies, then the problem is with the player, and yes the one who is powergaming so far ahead of the others that his character screws up how every encounter needs to be balanced needs to be punished with a rebuild. The fact that he is good at building strong characters does not make him exempt from this, as group fun takes priority.
On the other hand if rebuilding the defender into a better defender creates an enemy that presents a fun challenge to everyone in the party, then the GM was at fault for poor enemy-design of the previous defender, and the onus should probably be on the GM to rebuild to suit the group.
tldr: The rebuild goes to the one who isn't in-line with group majority. If the PC's power is significantly ahead of all their allies, the player rebuilds. If the enemy's power is significantly lower than all the players, the GM rebuilds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mess with it. You forgot his spell resistance not the players. You rolled poorly, not the players. If you want to roleplay it out a bit, let him get a reputation of a "powerful caster" and let other wizards seek the player out for a duel.
The players should be able to do stuff like that, enjoy the enjoyment of your players. My players still talk about the death attack that killed a BBEG 5 years ago. I rolled a one, but my guys loved it.
I agree 237%. I once had my players facing a pirate ghost. He kept trying to use a fear ability on them and demanding that they "feel the terror of the seas!" But they kept rolling amazing saves, even though the DC was high. They started mocking him.
That incident stuck with the group for a long time. Sometimes your BBEG isn't as BB as you might have hoped, but it can be just as fun and memorable for the players as a long, drawn-out fight. And fun is what you're after, after all. :)
An issue here might be that not punishing the one player who can out-powergame the GM, and instead choosing to fight back by building a better defender can sometimes be unfair to the rest of the group. If keeping up with the one guy who can hit that CR+3 shield fighter with lots of AC on every roll aside from natural 1 means that now the other 3+ players can't hit the enemies, then the problem is with the player, and yes the one who is powergaming so far ahead of the others that his character screws up how every encounter needs to be balanced needs to be punished with a rebuild. The fact that he is good at building strong characters does not make him exempt from this, as group fun takes priority.On the other hand if rebuilding the defender into a better defender creates an enemy that presents a fun challenge to everyone in the party, then the GM was at fault for poor enemy-design of the previous defender, and the onus should probably be on the GM to rebuild to suit the group.
tldr: The rebuild goes to the one who isn't in-line with group majority. If the PC's power is significantly ahead of all their allies, the player rebuilds. If the enemy's power is significantly lower than all the players, the GM rebuilds.
I have this problem with a majority of DM's as well. I've been effectively called a power gamer for building army killing/dragon slaying chars at low level... actually usually around level 10. Here's the thing about being a power gamer... it's hard to hold back. I know this from experience. I can hold back versus players while I'm running the show because I have a lot to play with; the world, the adventure, all the different monsters and scenarios; but as a player I have a tendency to over build.
Here's the problem. As a DM you have to build for the group. Yes, if that one char is really powerful compared to the others I don't think it's fair to make him rebuild. At the same time I don't think it's fair for the DM to have to rebuild simply to keep that player from dominating. Solution? Put that char in a tight spot. Magic User's get mad when their spells don't work right, fighters and barbarians get mad when they can't hit a target. Put the players against something that nullifies the power gamers abilities some. Something that halves all damage save for spells slows the barbarian and fighter but doesn't nullify them. Something that immune to polymorph like certain shape shifters stops baleful polymorph completely but doesn't stop the caster from being able to use his other spells.
|
|
Or if you are running a home game where the BBEG would know about the party and their tactics---a simple scroll of spell turning.
Now the character has to save versus his own spell
the spell slinger will start by throwing a lighter spell first--that he would not mind getting hit with. Buys you one round while he tests the waters each time.
If you Baleful Polymorph someone, all their equipment will meld into their body. So using it on the enemy boss might cost you a lot of money. (Although you can probably dispel the effect later when you have more control of the situation.)
A bead of newt prevention is cheap and great for things like this, particularly when the REAL villain watched his two lackeys get turned into chickens from the safety of his crystal ball and now knows what to expect.
My sorceress carries more than one.
Oh man, that is freaking awesome.
This continues to support my emerging policy of "always read Ravingdork posts."
If you don't want to do that, a Ring of Counterspelling will work as well. Or, as mentioned above, an invisible lackey in the corner with a readied action to dispel or counterspell any debuffs or other such hostile enchantments that hit the BBEG.
Why? if you are removing Baleful Polymorph then you best be ready to get rid of Flesh to Stone, Dominate Person(Monster), Charm Person, (Mass) Suggestion, Plane Shift, Dazing Spell Metamagic, Polymorph any Object and a whole host of other spells.I have no problem with that. If a spell breaks the game or makes it less fun, get rid of it. Simple as that.The problem is that you're not getting rid of a spell; you're getting rid of a battalion of them.
Why not simply say "everyone play a fighter without bonus feats," then?
I would not ban the spell. Adjust the monster tactics. When it becomes known the wizard or sorcerer is using baleful polymorph then come up with ways to remove the wizard quickly and with extreme prejudice. When the Wizard is a higher threat than the DPS then enemies will act on that priority.
Spell casters should usually be target number 1 for immediate elimination if the party is being successful with save or suck spells.
Just as a tank who's AC makes them unhittable will be bypassed by mobs, a wizard who is to dangerous will be singled out by them for special treatment.
|
Well, if they Baleful Polymorph an enemy, they could still escape.
Then, someone could remove the condition.
If that baddie came back, then they would more than likely have protection against the spell.
Heck, the vengeance of the once Baleful Polymorphed enemy sounds like a fun idea.
Basically, make it work for you, not against you.
If the player in question is somehow casting Baleful Polymorph more than the rules allow, then it's a mechanics issue. The loss of loot due to the spell merging all equipment into the new form can throw off wealth by level (if you use wealth by level). Which is trading power for potential future power.
If I was the player in question I wouldn't like it if my character nerfed by every villain having a specific item to stop me. With scrying I could see a few, but it would get annoying very quickly.
As a DM, I've learned to avoid single encounters when the group is fresh. A lone boss fight is more exciting when the groups resources a been taxed a bit.
I think it is important sometimes to let the party win through some other means than depleting enemy HPs.
Have enemies start to hear about their tactics and introduce counters for this spell (for the intelligent enemies).
|
|
On power gamers and GM fiat..
Do you have a contract with your players? It all comes down to the GM and players deciding amongst each other what will be fun for the group, the players AND the GM. GM's shouldnt build a campaign in a vacuum and players shouldnt build DRIZZT+UNICRON+SUPER SAYAN without group agreement that its acceptable for the type of game you're all agreeing upon. It may be late in the game, but Im sure your group can still sit down and meet at the middle somwhere. In the name of fun, if not necessarily "game mastery".
I have no intention of banning the spell, I have seen several ways to blunt the force of save or die effects in this thread without totally invalidating them. Even the bead witch does invalidate it is only useable once and will take away from other resources the NPCs might have had.
So what happens first, Spell turning or SR?
You don't have to blunt it, there are already two save throws and you said the guys already have spell resistance. Thats three chances for the spell to fail, thats enough.
Turn it into a roleplay encounter where the caster has to deal with the group not getting loot. Or BBBEG (extra B for Bigger) scrying on minions. Lesser known wizards seeking to dispatch the famous tranmuter and gain a name for themselves. Any one of these or all....just don't diminish the experience of the players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On some spells I just tell my players there are doors in my campaign, you open them and the bad guys get to do the same thing.
Baleful poly was abused for some time, few levels latter assaulting a temple 15 sorc's in a cabal spammed it back. The party saved on anything but a 1 or 2 mostly, but 15 times a round... only the wiz made it out of there.
That group was decent about 1 trick ponies after that.
EDIT: the sorcerers were sent by the campaigns BBEG to stop these annoying polymorphing fools
It annoys me when people say 'just design all encounters to prevent this happening, solo encounters are bad'. Firstly, if you're running a published adventure, it's very time consuming to have to change all the encounters to avoid solo-enemy-syndrome. Secondly, if you meet The Boss and he turns into a chicken, it's going to turn the dramatic showdown into comedy no matter how many minions he has.