Spells not to use as GMs


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 278 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

The Beard wrote:
I'm failing to see why someone knowing Blood Money would be such a big deal. It isn't a difficult leap to realize you could sacrifice part of your own life's essence to fuel your magic. Besides, it's requiring you to burn two spells per day just to be able to cast one single spell. It's really not at all an unbalanced ability if one considers a few things about it. Inflicting stat damage on yourself for higher cost magics is pretty damn bad if you're in a situation where you can't quickly recover it, for example, and this is in addition to needing to burn two of your daily spells on that one blood money fueled spell.

Blood Money in combat isn't a bad thing. Blood Money outside of combat is. Say you and the party are having downtime, the Wizard could use Blood Money to cast spells with expensive materials for free, while the Cleric patches up the Wizard's strength score for further casting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That's not even a big deal as most costly spells (and their costs) are transitory.

It's when they start using it for permanent things such as simulacrums, undead armies, permanency spells, wish ability increases, etc. that it can become really abusive.


SoD/SoL effects. They are boring and annoying.

I can't say I never use these spells... But I always think twice before adding one of them into the list of prepared/known spells of a NPC.

I usually don't use them as a player either.


I have only one spell I have decided never to use: color spray.

If the pc's are lvl 1-2 someone is going to fail their save if they all get hit, and then that person is out of the whole fight, and at that level there is no possible counter that I know of. At higher levels you can even counter death in 1 round depending on the level and circumstance, but at lvl 1-2 there is just nothing against a bad roll against color spray. Also what if by sheer chance they all fail their save? TPK from a lvl 1 spell. I don't mind PC's using it, but I personally wont as a gm.

As you get higher and higher in levels the higher level spells begin to become more dangerous, but a well built team has ways to counter (except maybe wish with GM fiat, but even then it should always be survivable) so if they fail or need to retreat or if someone dies and needs a new character it's because for whatever reason they failed against a legitimate threat, but it was fair, hard, maybe very hard, but fair. Color spray is not fair. that's before you even have access to dispel magic, so no.

Dark Archive

Anything the PCs use should be fair game for the GM. The thing you must do is occasionally choose to use these things sub-optimally, as some of these spells and/or abilities can just outright cause a TPK. Challenge is good but instant LOLZYOUDED is not fun for anyone.


Why are there so many spells that can kill fun?


Old Gumphrey wrote:
Why are there so many spells that can kill fun?

Because, for some reason, people think that not winning 100% of the time makes a game boring. Personally, I like it when I lose every once in a while, because that makes winning more meaningful.

But try telling that to people who act like those parents who get in fistfights at a little-league football game...


As a player, I'm hesitant to say that there are spells that a GM should never use, although there are a fair few that really shouldn't be used lightly. SoD spells come under this category. Deaths happen, and new characters can be made, but having a character that you've been playing for weeks, months, maybe years, die because of a single bad roll just feels wrong.

Other than SoD spells, I'd say spells that can permanently cripple a player, like mage's disjunction should be used sparingly. My DM's only thrown that at us once, and that was part of an adventure path he was running.

Other than those though, spells are fair game. Thing like bestow curse are annoying, but can be removed easily enough, same with paralysis and blindness/deafness.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Old Gumphrey wrote:
Why are there so many spells that can kill fun?

Because what makes the game fun varies heavily from person to person.

Some people aren't happy unless the GM optimizes and uses every dirty trick in the book (plus some GM Fiat) in an effort to murderize the players every single encounter. Other folks like something relatively laid back and casual where you can afford to play on a low-ish optimization level. Some people are fine with at least one PC biting the dust every session, some people want the party to stay the same for an entire campaign. Some people are fine high-level magic completely changing the way the game is played, and some people like a more grounded, low-magic feel.

The reason so many spells can kill fun is that every single player/GM is going to have their own ideas about what makes the game fun. The only universal answer there is to "What makes the game fun?" is "Expect Table Variation."


Unruly wrote:
Old Gumphrey wrote:
Why are there so many spells that can kill fun?

Because, for some reason, people think that not winning 100% of the time makes a game boring. Personally, I like it when I lose every once in a while, because that makes winning more meaningful.

But try telling that to people who act like those parents who get in fistfights at a little-league football game...

Umm... No.

if you actually read what we are writing. Almost no one is saying that. I am very careful what spells I pick. I don't use SoS all that much until higher levels. I use SoD rarely until higher levels. But I don't think you would find any of my players think I am "pulling punches" or giving them a guaranteed win. They have had some mission fails, deaths happen, and coming close to death is fairly common.


Ricard the Daring wrote:

Deaths happen, and new characters can be made, but having a character that you've been playing for weeks, months, maybe years, die because of a single bad roll just feels wrong.

Personally I find having a long lived character in a setting where you can't really die because of GM friendliness to be unremarkable. Having a character live through a meat grinder campaign on the other hand...

Personally I run a pretty lethal campaign, death is possible at every session. But I run it fair, I don't break outside of the CR system, I don't give NPC/monsters wealth outside of the guidelines (and when I do I up their CR as appropriate). But I also don't hold back on save or dies, massive damage packets, permanent (as much as you can when you can heal anything with magic) disabilities ect. The players who manage to get their characters to end of campaign without dying at least 1 can be counted on one hand. Death isn't permanent. Heck with Breath of Life being thrown around its barely an in combat issue. Its about as effective as daze is at level 1.

Dark Archive

One spell that should definitely not be used lightly is time stop. You could use it to drop every AoE with a duration of sufficient length on the party that you've got. Alternatively, you could use it in order to cover your caster NPC in every buff known to man. The latter of those two uses is far more acceptable than the following:

GM casts time stop. GM plops down a hungry pit followed by another via quicken. Next round cast wall of force followed up by quickened wall of force. Your third round of time stop could be used to deploy a third wall of force behind the PCs with quickened spell, and finally end with greater invisibility on yourself. They've got nowhere to go--they'll call even on reflex saves because you haven't left the victims any clear squares to enter. Most PCs tend to travel as very tight units while in hostile territory, meaning the odds are good that you'll catch them all in it. Might not even need the second hungry pit if it's a small enough group.

In any case, the PCs are trapped. What you do next is either the final summon monster spell, or barring that, you fly up above the pit and begin nuking them from orbit while they're already being eaten alive by it. One will need to consider that they might be able to see through invisibility, and if that's the case, be prepared to take evasive action in the event they somehow escape this almost certainly lethal use of time stop for last-minute trap setting. I suppose you could even plop down another wall of force so they've got literally no means of climbing out (not that it matters with those other walls of force occupying all the surrounding safe squares), but that's less so aiming for lethality and more trolling hard. Odds of a hungry pit actually killing level appropriate PCs by itself are, after all, very slim.


I love the idea of time stop.

Player: "Okay, guys, that strategy we used worked wonders. Looks like this so-called 'boss' will be a cakewalk--he's got, like, five health left!"
GM: "Suddenly, your enemy appears to blur..."
Player: "OH, F&@% ME!"

Spoiler:
GM: "What? He's just casting blur, guys."
Player: "Ohhhh."
GM: "Yeah, then he casts time stop and heals all his wounds."


My list is short:

Maze

No save, hope you eventually roll a 20 (as a typical fighter), otherwise sit around bored for potentially hours. Least fun spell in the game, I think.

Shadow Lodge

Maze is best with an opponent that can enter the maze with you for a one-on-one fight while the rest of the party deals with other threats.


I generally don't use save or dies, UNLESS my party is using them, then its an open field, and my players know this. Other than that, its an open playing field.

Dark Archive

Ian Bell wrote:

My list is short:

Maze

No save, hope you eventually roll a 20 (as a typical fighter), otherwise sit around bored for potentially hours. Least fun spell in the game, I think.

Never have a minotaur maze a fighter PC. That 1v1 situation is a can of worms the NPC really doesn't want to open.

Shadow Lodge

chaoseffect wrote:
williamoak wrote:
Firstly, I generally consider anything the PCs are willing to use is fair game.
I've heard people say that a lot, but it's something I completely disagree with. If the PC Save-or-Sucks, or oh no Save-or-Dies, on your NPCs you may be disappointed, but hey you literally have the rest of the universe to play.

Do you? Cause the tone seems to be that, really, you don't.


notabot wrote:
Ricard the Daring wrote:

Deaths happen, and new characters can be made, but having a character that you've been playing for weeks, months, maybe years, die because of a single bad roll just feels wrong.

Personally I find having a long lived character in a setting where you can't really die because of GM friendliness to be unremarkable. Having a character live through a meat grinder campaign on the other hand...

Personally I run a pretty lethal campaign, death is possible at every session. But I run it fair, I don't break outside of the CR system, I don't give NPC/monsters wealth outside of the guidelines (and when I do I up their CR as appropriate). But I also don't hold back on save or dies, massive damage packets, permanent (as much as you can when you can heal anything with magic) disabilities ect. The players who manage to get their characters to end of campaign without dying at least 1 can be counted on one hand. Death isn't permanent. Heck with Breath of Life being thrown around its barely an in combat issue. Its about as effective as daze is at level 1.

I mostly agree with you there. Having a character survive solely because the DM doesn't want to kill you does feel really off. I'd much rather the DM not specifically try to keep players alive. At the same time, as I mentioned, the reason I don't like save or die spells isn't because they kill players, it's because they all come down to a single roll. You can make a character with saving throws through the roof, but they'll still eventually get that 1. For things that just kill the player, that's fine, as you mentioned you can get resurrected pretty easily, but there are spells where resurrection can be problematic, like if a character is disintegrated, or something similiar to that.


Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
williamoak wrote:
Firstly, I generally consider anything the PCs are willing to use is fair game.
I've heard people say that a lot, but it's something I completely disagree with. If the PC Save-or-Sucks, or oh no Save-or-Dies, on your NPCs you may be disappointed, but hey you literally have the rest of the universe to play.
Do you? Cause the tone seems to be that, really, you don't.

Under Chaoseffect's guidelines, what you have "disallowed" (which I'd have to assume, like pretty much anything under the DM's purview, isn't a hard and fast rule) is much smaller than what the DM does have access to, which is pretty much everything else, including DM fiat. So, yeah, I wouldn't count 'not having save-or-die effects' as not being able to use effectively everything else in the DM's toolbox.


Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
I generally don't use save or dies, UNLESS my party is using them, then its an open field, and my players know this. Other than that, its an open playing field.

This


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Unruly wrote:
Old Gumphrey wrote:
Why are there so many spells that can kill fun?

Because, for some reason, people think that not winning 100% of the time makes a game boring. Personally, I like it when I lose every once in a while, because that makes winning more meaningful.

But try telling that to people who act like those parents who get in fistfights at a little-league football game...

Umm... No.

if you actually read what we are writing. Almost no one is saying that. I am very careful what spells I pick. I don't use SoS all that much until higher levels. I use SoD rarely until higher levels. But I don't think you would find any of my players think I am "pulling punches" or giving them a guaranteed win. They have had some mission fails, deaths happen, and coming close to death is fairly common.

I never said that anyone in this thread was acting like that. But I have encountered people across multiple different games who do. I went to high school with a couple guys who quite literally couldn't take a loss in Magic: The Gathering and have come to blows over it. One of my D&D players in high school would throw a tantrum if his character was taken out of a fight for any reason at all. That same player would accuse others of cheating if they were performing better than he was. I have an uncle who still refuses to play chess with me after I beat him once.

Those people exist. They're extreme examples, but the same "win or nothing" mentality that causes them to act the way they do exists in everyone to a degree. And I'd say that how well a person can keep it under control has a large effect on how they perceive SoS or SoD spells and effects. People that can handle losing well will think less of being hit with them, while people that can't handle losing as well will consider them more egregious, regardless of how infrequently they may be used.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not really a matter of losing, it's a matter of HOW you lost.

Good rule of thumb, if the automatic response to someone complaining about your tactic is "It's a legitimate strategy!" it's probably not because they lost, it's because of HOW you won.

Same with Save or Die effects. There's no skill involved, you didn't outplay the guy, he didn't make a mistake or play poorly, you just said "Die, b~#~%" and then he did.


Unruly wrote:
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Unruly wrote:
Old Gumphrey wrote:
Why are there so many spells that can kill fun?

Because, for some reason, people think that not winning 100% of the time makes a game boring. Personally, I like it when I lose every once in a while, because that makes winning more meaningful.

But try telling that to people who act like those parents who get in fistfights at a little-league football game...

Umm... No.

if you actually read what we are writing. Almost no one is saying that. I am very careful what spells I pick. I don't use SoS all that much until higher levels. I use SoD rarely until higher levels. But I don't think you would find any of my players think I am "pulling punches" or giving them a guaranteed win. They have had some mission fails, deaths happen, and coming close to death is fairly common.

I never said that anyone in this thread was acting like that. But I have encountered people across multiple different games who do. I went to high school with a couple guys who quite literally couldn't take a loss in Magic: The Gathering and have come to blows over it. One of my D&D players in high school would throw a tantrum if his character was taken out of a fight for any reason at all. That same player would accuse others of cheating if they were performing better than he was. I have an uncle who still refuses to play chess with me after I beat him once.

Those people exist. They're extreme examples, but the same "win or nothing" mentality that causes them to act the way they do exists in everyone to a degree. And I'd say that how well a person can keep it under control has a large effect on how they perceive SoS or SoD spells and effects. People that can handle losing well will think less of being hit with them, while people that can't handle losing as well will consider them more egregious, regardless of how infrequently they may be used.

Reminds me of when I was 14 or so and kicked my Uncles ass at Halo and he refused to play with me ever again because I had to be cheating. In his opinion, kids cannot beat adults at anything, because adults are inherently superior in every way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Old Gumphrey wrote:
Why are there so many spells that can kill fun?

Because no one studied game design when first edition was being written and the only people ever to be brave enough to actually fix the horrible legacy spell list were also presumptuous enough to completely erase all variety and poisoned the well for all future official attempts to fix D&D.

Silver Crusade

darkwarriorkarg wrote:
In that case I recommend against using planar binding against outsider(native) PCs

Cripes.

That's another reason I wish tieflings/aasimar/etc. weren't outsiders.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mswbear wrote:

Another "what shouldn't the GM use" thread?

OK, well here it goes...

I have been talking about this with a few friends lately and I really don't get the attachment people get to their characters. I just really don't.

I have never had a character die and then had said death bother me. I had a level 6 psychic warrior/10 pyrokenetic in 3.5 who was the most fun character I have ever played, tons of damage, tons of cool abilities, extensive back-story (which the GM was kind enough to incorporate on several adventures), just a total blast. When he died I rolled up another character, no hard feelings, no bitterness, didn't call fault, nothing bad just rolled up a new character.

I think that if there is a spell/feat/combat maneuver/whatever written into the rules then it is fair game to use against the players.

I say save or die/sunder weapons/alter reality/whatever.
I have never understood the anger and disgust that so many other players experience when they die, lose a magical weapon/item, or have that feeling of unstoppable badass taken away for half a second.
Maybe I don’t take the game as seriously or maybe I have a broader sense of entertainment, IDK but threads like this confuse me.

If it were half a second it wouldn't be an issue. My "attachment" is to not sitting around doing nothing for an hour or two real world time because I rolled poorly on one save.


Rynjin wrote:
It's not really a matter of losing, it's a matter of HOW you lost.

In my experience, it's a mixture of both. Regardless of how legitimate a strategy may be, if the person on the receiving end feels that it's "cheap" in any way, shape, or form, they'll throw the same tantrum. Invisible wizard casting summons? You're being cheap and that's not fair. Rogues with Improved Invisibility flanking? Cheap and unfair. Fighting a dragon who flies around and only closes when it can use its breath weapon? Cheap and unfair. Having an archer NPC retreat after every shot rather than standing still and letting the player close? Cheap and unfair.

Those are all examples of situations where I've seen players complain and throw fits. Nothing about them is out of the ordinary for a game like D&D/Pathfinder, and nothing about them is truly cheap or unfair. But it doesn't stop players from complaining because they lost to that strategy.

Granted, SoD and SoS spells are a bit different, but it's the same general idea. It doesn't matter how justified the tactic actually is, people will still complain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unruly wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
It's not really a matter of losing, it's a matter of HOW you lost.

In my experience, it's a mixture of both. Regardless of how legitimate a strategy may be, if the person on the receiving end feels that it's "cheap" in any way, shape, or form, they'll throw the same tantrum. Invisible wizard casting summons? You're being cheap and that's not fair. Rogues with Improved Invisibility flanking? Cheap and unfair. Fighting a dragon who flies around and only closes when it can use its breath weapon? Cheap and unfair. Having an archer NPC retreat after every shot rather than standing still and letting the player close? Cheap and unfair.

Those are all examples of situations where I've seen players complain and throw fits. Nothing about them is out of the ordinary for a game like D&D/Pathfinder, and nothing about them is truly cheap or unfair. But it doesn't stop players from complaining because they lost to that strategy.

Granted, SoD and SoS spells are a bit different, but it's the same general idea. It doesn't matter how justified the tactic actually is, people will still complain.

Huh, weird. My group actually expects those types of tactics and seek to neutralize them. Like a Dragon that only does fly-by breath weapons, we use things like Wall of Stone or Wall of Force to knock them out of the sky.

Archers? We use fog spells, wind wall, fickle winds etc. to neutralize them.

Invisible opponents? Glitterdust is always prepared. Always. We also almost always have Invisibility Purge and See Invisibility prepared or on scroll so we can accurately land those Glitterdusts.

SoS or SoD spells are just one of the hazards of gaming that my players and I are all well aware of and accept as a hazard of the game. If we go up against a Necromancer, as players, we expect Enervations, Rays of Enfeeblement, Rays of Exhaustion, Bestow Curse, Finger of Death etc. If we don't see those in play, it's really odd to us.

Frankly, I don't want to sit down and play a game where my character and my party is Harry Potter and Co. You know, surviving because the Author said so, rather than through our strength and skill.


Ross Byers wrote:
Plane shift as an offensive spell. Nothing bogs down a session faster than dealing with the fighter's new solo adventure on the Plane of Fire.

How many hitpoints does a fighter need to last more than two rounds on the plane of fire?


Unruly wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
It's not really a matter of losing, it's a matter of HOW you lost.

In my experience, it's a mixture of both. Regardless of how legitimate a strategy may be, if the person on the receiving end feels that it's "cheap" in any way, shape, or form, they'll throw the same tantrum. Invisible wizard casting summons? You're being cheap and that's not fair. Rogues with Improved Invisibility flanking? Cheap and unfair. Fighting a dragon who flies around and only closes when it can use its breath weapon? Cheap and unfair. Having an archer NPC retreat after every shot rather than standing still and letting the player close? Cheap and unfair.

Those are all examples of situations where I've seen players complain and throw fits. Nothing about them is out of the ordinary for a game like D&D/Pathfinder, and nothing about them is truly cheap or unfair. But it doesn't stop players from complaining because they lost to that strategy.

Granted, SoD and SoS spells are a bit different, but it's the same general idea. It doesn't matter how justified the tactic actually is, people will still complain.

The thing is that almost every single one of those tactics can be beaten strategically using good tactics and planning. "Rolling above a nat 1" isn't really a strategy for survival.

Sovereign Court

Old Gumphrey wrote:
Why are there so many spells that can kill fun?

Turning people to stone, polymorphing them into toads, disintegrating or killing with a single word. Those are iconic high-fantasy spells; you kinda expect them to exist in a game like PF.

It's only a little later, when they get used against the PCs, that you realize that while they look neat on paper, they have some problems in practice.


Geo Fix wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Plane shift as an offensive spell. Nothing bogs down a session faster than dealing with the fighter's new solo adventure on the Plane of Fire.

How many hitpoints does a fighter need to last more than two rounds on the plane of fire?

"Unprotected wood, paper, cloth, and other flammable materials catch fire almost immediately, and those wearing unprotected flammable clothing catch on fire. In addition, individuals take 3d10 points of fire damage every round they are on a fire-dominant plane. Creatures of the water subtype are extremely uncomfortable on fire-dominant planes. Those that are made of water take double damage each round."

LOL, Assuming he doesn't have fire resistance up, he won't last very long, but not too tough to last for over 2 rounds!


Ascalaphus wrote:
Old Gumphrey wrote:
Why are there so many spells that can kill fun?

Turning people to stone, polymorphing them into toads, disintegrating or killing with a single word. Those are iconic high-fantasy spells; you kinda expect them to exist in a game like PF.

It's only a little later, when they get used against the PCs, that you realize that while they look neat on paper, they have some problems in practice.

Although I'd agree those are all annoying spells, and should be used sparingly, the only spell of those that I'd say should be avoided if possible is disintegrate because it's so difficult to revive them. Even that you can survive a failed throw if you have decent hitpoints at high level.

Dark Archive

Unruly wrote:

In my experience, it's a mixture of both. Regardless of how legitimate a strategy may be, if the person on the receiving end feels that it's "cheap" in any way, shape, or form, they'll throw the same tantrum. Invisible wizard casting summons? You're being cheap and that's not fair. Rogues with Improved Invisibility flanking? Cheap and unfair. Fighting a dragon who flies around and only closes when it can use its breath weapon? Cheap and unfair. Having an archer NPC retreat after every shot rather than standing still and letting the player close? Cheap and unfair.

To be fair, doing that with a dragon can be pretty prickish towards the party. A lone ranged character (most parties have one non-caster long range character) is going to have an awful hard time bringing down a dragon by itself, particularly when you consider that some of them have breath weapons that keep them outside even a longbow's first range increment. Then you've got SR, which dragons have in spades; the spell caster probably isn't bringing it down either. They have range to contend with (a lot of the most powerful spells of different types have a relatively short range) as well, though it doesn't limit them quite so much as other classes. Meanwhile, as this goes on, the rest of the party begins trying to nickle and dime it to death with whatever ranged weapon they have--odds are their classes suck at ranged combat to start with.

Suffice to say, and I speak from GM experience on this one, sometimes you need to just let the dragon land. Besides, red dragons seem to be the most common variety used by GMs, and they are even noted to love physical combat. They will often land and fight despite how unwise it might be.

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:


Same with Save or Die effects. There's no skill involved, you didn't outplay the guy, he didn't make a mistake or play poorly, you just said "Die, b!%%&" and then he did.

Is it really skill or just the binary nature of the effect? For example, there isn't much player skill in rolling a full attack or casting a massive damage spell either. The main difference is that generally, due to the random nature of rolling lots of dice, an outright kill is not the only outcome. Sure you can get crit or roll max damage and one-shot someone, but generally that does not happen. Save or die/suck effects, on the other hand, are generally all or nothing. Rolling more dice does not equal skill. What is more fun is a matter of opinion though.

Liberty's Edge

The Beard wrote:


Suffice to say, and I speak from GM experience on this one, sometimes you need to just let the dragon land. Besides, red dragons seem to be the most common variety used by GMs, and they are even noted to love physical combat. They will often land and fight despite how unwise it might be.

I'm going to disagree here. Any group can easily adapt to this tactic. Even a group of all fighters can drink fly potions. If this was a surprise dragon attack (which are very difficult to deal with) then, yes, the group may need to retreat and regroup. However, a group who is knows a battle with a red dragon is nigh, and doesn't prepare for fire and flight, deserves their defeat.


My group typically doesn't play casters so I can't normally utilize casters normally. I did however do a recent encounter with mooks and a witch that everyone except the ranger died.


Oh! I ran one encounter with a high level party and I found that SoS abilities really hurt.... I had the party of level 18s (a Rogue, a Cavalier, a Pally, a Cleric, and an Oracle) go up against a level 20 Malefactor (from TPK games) and 2 level 17 witches. The encounter was a bit tougher intentionally because the Cleric, oracle, and Pally were all VERY optimized. Well, lets just say that the party didn't do so well and were very disgruntled by how they died.

Pretty much what happened was that the Malefactor went up and used her aura and maledictions to kill everyone's saves while the witches both used Evil Eye to kill their saves even more. At which point the Witches just kinda used Hoarfrost, Ice Tomb, and Slumber to pretty much kill the whole party.... It kinda sucked for them...


The_Hanged_Man wrote:
The Beard wrote:


Suffice to say, and I speak from GM experience on this one, sometimes you need to just let the dragon land. Besides, red dragons seem to be the most common variety used by GMs, and they are even noted to love physical combat. They will often land and fight despite how unwise it might be.
I'm going to disagree here. Any group can easily adapt to this tactic. Even a group of all fighters can drink fly potions. If this was a surprise dragon attack (which are very difficult to deal with) then, yes, the group may need to retreat and regroup. However, a group who is knows a battle with a red dragon is nigh, and doesn't prepare for fire and flight, deserves their defeat.

I'm going to agree here. If all a group can do is mindlessly attack, they aren't stretching their full strategic muscles. Next time, they'll prepare fly, or bring potions--or come up with more unorthodox strategies.


The Beard wrote:
Unruly wrote:

In my experience, it's a mixture of both. Regardless of how legitimate a strategy may be, if the person on the receiving end feels that it's "cheap" in any way, shape, or form, they'll throw the same tantrum. Invisible wizard casting summons? You're being cheap and that's not fair. Rogues with Improved Invisibility flanking? Cheap and unfair. Fighting a dragon who flies around and only closes when it can use its breath weapon? Cheap and unfair. Having an archer NPC retreat after every shot rather than standing still and letting the player close? Cheap and unfair.

To be fair, doing that with a dragon can be pretty prickish towards the party. A lone ranged character (most parties have one non-caster long range character) is going to have an awful hard time bringing down a dragon by itself, particularly when you consider that some of them have breath weapons that keep them outside even a longbow's first range increment. Then you've got SR, which dragons have in spades; the spell caster probably isn't bringing it down either. They have range to contend with (a lot of the most powerful spells of different types have a relatively short range) as well, though it doesn't limit them quite so much as other classes. Meanwhile, as this goes on, the rest of the party begins trying to nickle and dime it to death with whatever ranged weapon they have--odds are their classes suck at ranged combat to start with.

Suffice to say, and I speak from GM experience on this one, sometimes you need to just let the dragon land. Besides, red dragons seem to be the most common variety used by GMs, and they are even noted to love physical combat. They will often land and fight despite how unwise it might be.

I've actually done that with a high level dragon. Did it in 3.5, where it was probably a more lethal option.

The party retreated, used scrying to see when the dragon landed, and used teleport to turn the dwarf fighter into an orbital weapon. They one-shotted the dragon without the dragon ever getting a chance to fight back.

I would say it depends entirely on the creativity of the party and how they adapt to tactics whether or not something is cheap. Sometimes, it just is cheap and you shouldn't use it. Other times, the party will drop a dwarf on it from orbit.


The_Hanged_Man wrote:
Rynjin wrote:


Same with Save or Die effects. There's no skill involved, you didn't outplay the guy, he didn't make a mistake or play poorly, you just said "Die, b!%%&" and then he did.
Is it really skill or just the binary nature of the effect? For example, there isn't much player skill in rolling a full attack or casting a massive damage spell either. The main difference is that generally, due to the random nature of rolling lots of dice, an outright kill is not the only outcome. Sure you can get crit or roll max damage and one-shot someone, but generally that does not happen. Save or die/suck effects, on the other hand, are generally all or nothing. Rolling more dice does not equal skill. What is more fun is a matter of opinion though.

Little of Column A, little of Column B...

A skilled player can use good planning to straight up murder an enemy before he gets a chance to fight back, but only if his plan is good and covers all contingencies.

AND doing so requires more than one roll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I'd like to find a way to make the Save or die/be removed from battle/join the enemy type effects to work against HP.

Something like Sleep does 1d6 non-lethal per level save for half and if your non-lethal damage is > half your current HP after a failed save you fall asleep.


The Beard wrote:
To be fair, doing that with a dragon can be pretty prickish towards the party. A lone ranged character (most parties have one non-caster long range character) is going to have an awful hard time bringing down a dragon by itself, particularly when you consider that some of them have breath weapons that keep them outside even a longbow's first range increment. Then you've got SR, which dragons have in spades; the spell caster probably isn't bringing it down either. They have range to contend with (a lot of the most powerful spells of different types have a relatively short range) as well, though it doesn't limit them quite so much as other classes. Meanwhile, as this goes on, the rest of the party begins trying to nickle and dime it to death with whatever ranged weapon they have--odds are their classes suck at ranged combat to start with.

Rynjin made a statement that basically amounted to "If you respond to complaints with 'It's a legitimate strategy' then you're being cheap and lame, and should probably stop."

What I'm getting at is that the GM response to complaints of "It's a legitimate strategy" doesn't always mean you're using some cheap or lame tactic. Sometimes it's the truth. To illustrate that, I gave examples of situations in which I've had players complain about tactics that were 100% wholly legitimate for an intelligent opponent.

As regards the dragon, in my particular case it was a river drake against a level 3 party of 5, using its home lake as favorable ground. It would pop out of the water, use its caustic mucus ability, and then on its next turn it would pop back underwater until it was ready to spit again. It targeted the party alchemist first, because the alchemist hit it hard in the first round of combat, and managed to drop the character with a single use of its caustic mucus. The alchemist just failed all of his Reflex saves in a string of back luck, so he kept getting hit with acid damage every round. That was the only attack I threw in the alchemist's direction for that entire fight, but for the rest of that night I heard nothing but complaints from the player about how cheap of a tactic it was because it ended up with him being nearly dead by the time the party beat the drake.

And, to keep it somewhat more on topic, the river drake's caustic mucus ability can very easily be considered a SoS ability. It's 2d8+entangle unless you make a reflex save, with 1d4 extra damage every round until you break the entangle. But I don't think many people would consider it something that you shouldn't use simply because it's got SoS effects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unruly wrote:
The Beard wrote:
To be fair, doing that with a dragon can be pretty prickish towards the party. A lone ranged character (most parties have one non-caster long range character) is going to have an awful hard time bringing down a dragon by itself, particularly when you consider that some of them have breath weapons that keep them outside even a longbow's first range increment. Then you've got SR, which dragons have in spades; the spell caster probably isn't bringing it down either. They have range to contend with (a lot of the most powerful spells of different types have a relatively short range) as well, though it doesn't limit them quite so much as other classes. Meanwhile, as this goes on, the rest of the party begins trying to nickle and dime it to death with whatever ranged weapon they have--odds are their classes suck at ranged combat to start with.

Rynjin made a statement that basically amounted to "If you respond to complaints with 'It's a legitimate strategy' then you're being cheap and lame, and should probably stop."

What I'm getting at is that the GM response to complaints of "It's a legitimate strategy" doesn't always mean you're using some cheap or lame tactic. Sometimes it's the truth. To illustrate that, I gave examples of situations in which I've had players complain about tactics that were 100% wholly legitimate for an intelligent opponent.

As regards the dragon, in my particular case it was a river drake against a level 3 party of 5, using its home lake as favorable ground. It would pop out of the water, use its caustic mucus ability, and then on its next turn it would pop back underwater until it was ready to spit again. It targeted the party alchemist first, because the alchemist hit it hard in the first round of combat, and managed to drop the character with a single use of its caustic mucus. The alchemist just failed all of his Reflex saves in a string of back luck, so he kept getting hit with acid damage every round. That was the only attack I threw in the alchemist's...

Out of curiosity, did the party have any hints that a "water" encounter was possible? We're they prepared for an enemy that could retreat underwater and escape their counter-attacks? Or were they just walking along, going someplace else, when they passed by a lake and got jumped? What is the level of system mastery at your table?

The answer to any of these questions could affect how the players perceive the encounter. It really doesn't matter if your tactics are "legitimate" or logical for the creature if your players feel otherwise.

Most players want a fair challenge. The issues arise when their definition of fair and the GM's differ. It amazes me how many of the problems at tables could be solved by a little communication. Because it doesn't matter how right you are if no one will play the game with you...


Eirikrautha wrote:
Unruly wrote:
The Beard wrote:
To be fair, doing that with a dragon can be pretty prickish towards the party. A lone ranged character (most parties have one non-caster long range character) is going to have an awful hard time bringing down a dragon by itself, particularly when you consider that some of them have breath weapons that keep them outside even a longbow's first range increment. Then you've got SR, which dragons have in spades; the spell caster probably isn't bringing it down either. They have range to contend with (a lot of the most powerful spells of different types have a relatively short range) as well, though it doesn't limit them quite so much as other classes. Meanwhile, as this goes on, the rest of the party begins trying to nickle and dime it to death with whatever ranged weapon they have--odds are their classes suck at ranged combat to start with.

Rynjin made a statement that basically amounted to "If you respond to complaints with 'It's a legitimate strategy' then you're being cheap and lame, and should probably stop."

What I'm getting at is that the GM response to complaints of "It's a legitimate strategy" doesn't always mean you're using some cheap or lame tactic. Sometimes it's the truth. To illustrate that, I gave examples of situations in which I've had players complain about tactics that were 100% wholly legitimate for an intelligent opponent.

As regards the dragon, in my particular case it was a river drake against a level 3 party of 5, using its home lake as favorable ground. It would pop out of the water, use its caustic mucus ability, and then on its next turn it would pop back underwater until it was ready to spit again. It targeted the party alchemist first, because the alchemist hit it hard in the first round of combat, and managed to drop the character with a single use of its caustic mucus. The alchemist just failed all of his Reflex saves in a string of back luck, so he kept getting hit with acid damage every round. That was the only attack I

...

Remember. They are Level 3... There really is not many answers to aquatic things at level 3 unless your characters are specifically built to handle water (like characters for aquatic campaigns and sorcerer bloodlines/Oracle Mysteries)

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I'm going to agree here. If all a group can do is mindlessly attack, they aren't stretching their full strategic muscles. Next time, they'll prepare fly, or bring potions--or come up with more unorthodox strategies.

Teaching an inexperienced group to buy potions of fly by annihilating the entire party is more likely to just drive them away, not provide any educational benefit. I suspect this would've been the outcome if I hadn't provided the party with a cave to take cover in, not that it actually saved them. It just allowed them to actually confront the dragon head on. Down side is that it had'em trapped there, and I'd given it some of the breath weapon feats from the Draconomicon. The party wizard wound up grabbing the survivors (while staggered), teleporting to the nearby capital city, and immediately collapsing into unconsciousness (and consequently starting to bleed out). The other two couldn't heal and they were already out of potions so the wizard wound up dying. Wisely, he chose to use his turn getting everyone left out of harm's way instead of chugging the potion in is hand.

In any case, the party was very upset with how things went. It was their first time ever encountering a dragon in D&D; these were also their first high level characters. It wasn't the defeat that left them so agitated, but the fact that I chose the "school of hard knocks" option for breaking them in. In hindsight, I believe they may have been justified in being peeved. Some personality types are not suited to getting a crash course in dragonomics.


I avoid Save-or-Die stuff. I, and my players, do not find them enjoyable. We all agree that chance plays an exciting part in any gaming session, but we simply find this type of chance entirely unappealing.

As far as encounters go, I mix it up. I'll always throw some encounters in that allows PCs to feel powerful and is generally a minimal threat to them, but these come in addition to the usual, more challenging encounters they'd face in a day (to avoid nova situations).

My players also know that for every few cake-walk encounters, there's likely going to be one really tough one coming soon. By tough I mean the enemies they face will be organized, intelligent, and generally use tactics and abilities that the PCs also have access to and use (or tactics/abilities the opponents would use in the case of monsters/animals). The enemies won't nova, but it'll be a hard fought battle that will likely leave a few PCs battered pretty good.

For particularly challenging encounters, I'll usually offer up some advance clues as to what they'll be facing so they can prepare things that will help, but there will still be some surprises.


Eirikrautha wrote:

Out of curiosity, did the party have any hints that a "water" encounter was possible? We're they prepared for an enemy that could retreat underwater and escape their counter-attacks? Or were they just walking along, going someplace else, when they passed by a lake and got jumped? What is the level of system mastery at your table?

The answer to any of these questions could affect how the players perceive the encounter. It really doesn't matter if your tactics are "legitimate" or logical for the creature if your players feel otherwise.

Most players want a fair challenge. The issues arise when their definition of fair and the GM's differ. It amazes me how many of the problems at tables could be solved by a little communication. Because it doesn't matter how right you are if no one will play the game with you...

The level of system mastery was moderate. Four average players and one that was new. No one there knew every last detail of everything, but everyone knew the general way that the game played. Basically, everyone had what I call the Swiss army knife gear(rope, ranged weapon, alchemist fire, acid, holy water, tanglefoot bag). The alchemist character was actually played by one of the more experienced players.

As for warning of a water encounter, they had been dealing with a tribe of kobolds living along an underground river who kept talking about their "great destroyer" that they were going to unleash on the nearby town. They saw the kobolds throwing valuables and raw meat into the lake. And, on numerous occasions, I mentioned a large shadow in the water that followed them any time they got near the river. So I'd like to think that I dropped enough hints that something was going to happen that involved the water. The whole adventure had been pointing to the kobolds having bribed some stronger draconic creature to help them.

On top of that, they were a level 3 party of five against a single CR 3 creature. Even with the unfavorable terrain, that's an APL+1 encounter at worst. And it was supposed to be a capstone fight for that particular adventure. No one died, the newbie had a blast, but the experienced guy gave me grief for it because he had a run of bad luck with his dice.

151 to 200 of 278 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Spells not to use as GMs All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.