Does multiple saves from the same monster type stack?

[SirTerron]

Hi.

Last week my players came upon six mummies guarding the final resting place of a vampire lord they've had some problems with.

So combat begins and I say:
Roll six will saves.

One for each of the mummies they encountered.

The DC is only 16, but with six saves only one of them manages to make all the saves.

So the fight went badly and in the aftermath the kingdom had lost it's ruler and a few leaders. Since the teleport spell died with the caster, only one of the survivors made it home in time to rule the kingdom.

Now the kingdom has a new ruler and yet again they will try to take out the vampire lord and stop his undead army.

So my question is this:
With multiple monsters of the same type, do the PC's:
1. Make a will save for each of the mummies (Dc 16 for each)
2. Make one willsave only (at DC 16)
3. Make only one will save with a +2 to DC for every extra mummy? (DC 26)

Or is there another way to handle this?
As a houserule I'm thinking of giving each PC a choice between 1 & 3 before they make the saves (Unless there is a rule to handle this)

SirTerron

[Kolokotroni]

The answer is 1. They dont stack. They all work independantely unless the ability says otherwise.

[Bizbag]

This is important because the durations are randomized - someone Feare by Mummy 1 May last only 1 round, but Mummy 2 might roll a 4. They overlap, not stack, but player A might be feared for 1 round and player 2 for 4.

[Claxon]

Yep, overlap not stack. Yes, when you use monsters with nasty auras it can make life difficult for players since they have a 5% chance of failing any save automatically. With forcing enough saves they will eventually fail.

A mummy is a cr5. 6 mummies works out to a CR 10 encounter (if you take the XP of each individual mummy and add it together its the same as 1 CR 10 monster). So, a 10th level party would probably have some people with bad will save progression, so probably like a +6 bonus for will save for at least 1 party member, if not multiple. That requires a roll of 10 (50% chance) or better 6 times. So whats the odds of that happening?

I believe it should be .5^6 = ~.016. Thats a 1.6% chance. As good as toast.

On the other end of the spectrum, even your players with the highest save have a chance to fail. They can roll a one, and may even faill above that too. But what is that chance that 1 out of six rolls will be a 1? Well you have a 95% chance not to roll a 1. So 1-.95^6=~.265. Thats a 26.5% chance that everyone of you players will roll a 1 and fail no matter how good they are.

In short, you players have a very low chance of everyone not being paralyzed for at least 1 round by the mummies.

[Kolyarut]

The solution is not to change the mummies' abilities, but to change the effective CR. Some part of the GM experience is adjudicating Challenge Ratings beyond the recommended values based on these variables that the system cannot predict. So I would call this encounter higher than CR 10 and use that to determine when to use this monster group accordingly.

[Bill Dunn]

I think getting a look at how PF handles multiple doses of poison offers some useful ideas on how to handle multiple, simultaneous applications of the exact same aura. Multiple doses extend the effect a bit (something I wouldn't recommend here) and increase the save DC +2 per additional dose. In this case, +1 per mummy after the first is probably quite enough.

This is a good example of why having a referee capable of adjudicating the game in the spirit of what it's trying to accomplish rather than just administering the rules produces a better experience.

[Bizbag]

Quote:

On the other end of the spectrum, even your players with the highest save have a chance to fail. They can roll a one, and may even faill above that too. But what is that chance that 1 out of six rolls will be a 1? Well you have a 95% chance not to roll a 1. So 1-.95^6=~.265. Thats a 26.5% chance that everyone of you players will roll a 1 and fail no matter how good they are.

Your math is just awful :P

For one player, there are 20^6 possible permutations of dice rolls. Approximately (20^5)x6 contain at least one 1 (not exactly, but close). So one player has about about a 30% chance to fail at least one roll if they only fail on a 1.

To help visualize; say there are only two mummies. There are 400 possible permutations to your saves, and 39 of them contain at least one 1, which is just under a 10% chance to fail.

The chance of the whole party getting at least one 1 each is 0.3^6, or 0.073%.

[Claxon]

Lets look at the way I calculated, but using your second example.

2 mummies, you say the answer is just under 10%.

1-(0.95^2) = 1-.9025 = .0975, or right under 10%, were saying the same thing. Also, per you observation, 39/400 = .0975.

Edit: I will say I should have each one, instead of everyone.

[mplindustries]

I think the short answer here is that, while technically an acceptable encounter by the rules, 6 enemies with debilitating auras is not a good idea.

Or rather, it is not a fun idea, because it's a very good idea for the guy who puts them there as guards.

You'll get the same sort of issue with groups of enemies that have save or lose gaze attacks, too. Or a cluster of Enchanters that just all spam Dominate Person.

Consider next time making the mummies "lesser mummies" with an aura that just stacks up a non-escalating Shaken effect or something, and leave the Despair aura for the noteworthy solo mummy encounters.

[blahpers]

Or, given that the new party knows about the threat, perhaps they should plan better so as not to have to see all six within 30' at the same time. That's a pretty nasty trap.

Barring that, they might invest in freedom of movement.

I'd expect a 10th level party to plan for such things (and give them the opportunity to do so).

[SirTerron]

Hi guys. Thanks for the good advices.
I think I'll go with the old "roll a lot of saves".

This time the party knew about the mummies.
They are cursed and any undead they slay will come back to (un)life within a week. So after killing them the first time the party wanted to teleport right back to the same room. Nobody listened to the fighter who said this is a bad idea.

A few botched saves later and the only two survivors where trying to escape the dungeon without a teleport. The fighter even had to ditch his full plate and backpack due to a lucky encounter with a shadow.

Escaping the dungeon they got seperated and had to make a long journey through the kingdom before making it home to the castle.

Due to a disease the thief got in the swamp on his way home he had to be nursed back to health at a small roadside chapel. Missing out on the kingdom roll.

The kingdom has yet to recover from the loss of their ruler and a few of the other rulers.

This time they are back with a cleric and an oracle loaded to the brim whit protection from fear and restoration. And a fighter searching for his armor :)