Mechanics themselves do not bother me they are simply the abstractions that allow the game to go on. What breaks immersion for me is using game mechanics strategy rather than real world strategy. Two-Hundred kobolds attack, "who cares were level 9 they can't possibly hit our AC unless the roll 20s lets mop them up." This is completely true but it is a decision based on paper not on what an actual person who wants to live would do.
I agree. If those 9th level characters were real or even in a novel they would not win that fight and likely run away. As things are in the game a 10th level character can take on 20 cr 1 characters and likely walk away without to much damage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's more the fact that we tend to forget that tenth level characters aren't representative of real world people.
After all, in their universe, the tenth level hero can take on twenty of the city watch and expect to walk away with barely a scratch - they should act accordingly, shouldn't they? I don't think that's a "mechanics strategy" nor a "real world strategy" - I think it's a "pathfinder world strategy".
Although its a peculiar claim, I think if a pathfinder character were to act as if they were bound by our real world human limitations, it would be quite unrealistic. :o
Why does every fighter I make have to have Iron Will and Indomitable Faith?Good question. I've done just fine without them. : )
Because they don't want to stab their party members in the face. Despite fighters getting picked on a lot they still hit really hard, and many GM's do not say "Oh Timmy has a weak will save, I will avoid charm person and dominate person, and fear, etc etc, so he can choose options he wants instead of options he needs".
Until that happens people will do what they can to maintain control over their characters, because sitting on the sidelines really annoys some people. Yes, I know that not every will save has you sitting on the sidelines. I am just giving reasons as to why people do it.
That's because in the real world you're not an impossibly strong and skilled fighter up against a horde of 3' wimpy reptiles.
The game isn't simulating reality. It's simulating heroic fantasy fiction. Characters being able to take on hordes of mooks single-handed is part of the genre. If you don't like that, don't blame the players for realistically assessing their characters abilities,
Similarly, a real person would never think he could fight a 40' giant with a sword or attack a dragon or even go one-on-one with a rhino. But we're playing fantasy heroes. Gritty realism gets left behind pretty early on.(Note: I am assuming for the purposes of this argument that the player is correct about mechanically not having to worry about the 200 kobolds. As the OP said, "This is completely true.")
Which brings up the point of using your shield to block the attack of a huge or bigger creature which would likely break your arm from the force of the blow and maybe the shield also.
I understand why the game is how it is, so I invoke suspension of belief. :)
Another one is that an arrow that misses someone never goes past that square and hits anyone or anything else.
PS: These things don't really bother me. I am just participating.
I think that's more the fact that we tend to forget that tenth level characters aren't representative of real world people.
After all, in their universe, the tenth level hero can take on twenty of the city watch and expect to walk away with barely a scratch - they should act accordingly, shouldn't they? I don't think that's a "mechanics strategy" nor a "real world strategy" - I think it's a "pathfinder world strategy".
Although its a peculiar claim, I think if a pathfinder character were to act as if they were bound by our real world human limitations, it would be quite unrealistic. :o
I compare a 10th level character to someone like beowulf maybe.
Maybe I should use hercules instead. I can see him killing 100 people and despite being a demigod in mythology he is not demigod by PF standards so CR 10 or 11 fits. A few barbarian levels + the advanced template and I think we are good to go. :)
Another one is that an arrow that misses someone never goes past that square and hits anyone or anything else.
PS: These things don't really bother me. I am just participating.
Arrows in general. I can't how many times archers just hit people in the shoulder, as that's the only place that kinda makes sense for the person to still be up and about. It's like all the target practice in the fantasy world is based around shoulder shots.
Maybe I should use hercules instead. I can see him killing 100 people and despite being a demigod in mythology he is not demigod by PF standards so CR 10 or 11 fits. A few barbarian levels + the advanced template and I think we are good to go. :)
Depends on the level of the people. If you have decent AC and HP, maybe some limited kind of self-heal, you could take on thousands of low level characters. If you have decent DR...
Maybe I should use hercules instead. I can see him killing 100 people and despite being a demigod in mythology he is not demigod by PF standards so CR 10 or 11 fits. A few barbarian levels + the advanced template and I think we are good to go. :)Depends on the level of the people. If you have decent AC and HP, maybe some limited kind of self-heal, you could take on thousands of low level characters. If you have decent DR...
I was assuming the common fighter or barbarian type with no magic, but yeah the DR of the barbarian is a good way to represent people having difficulty trying to hurt Hercules.
I think that's more the fact that we tend to forget that tenth level characters aren't representative of real world people.
After all, in their universe, the tenth level hero can take on twenty of the city watch and expect to walk away with barely a scratch - they should act accordingly, shouldn't they? I don't think that's a "mechanics strategy" nor a "real world strategy" - I think it's a "pathfinder world strategy".
Although its a peculiar claim, I think if a pathfinder character were to act as if they were bound by our real world human limitations, it would be quite unrealistic. :o
I compare a 10th level character to someone like beowulf maybe.
Maybe I should use hercules instead. I can see him killing 100 people and despite being a demigod in mythology he is not demigod by PF standards so CR 10 or 11 fits. A few barbarian levels + the advanced template and I think we are good to go. :)
Hercules can jump pretty high though and that skill is not based on strength putting his level well over 20.
Hercules can jump pretty high though and that skill is not based on strength putting his level well over 20.I think that's more the fact that we tend to forget that tenth level characters aren't representative of real world people.
After all, in their universe, the tenth level hero can take on twenty of the city watch and expect to walk away with barely a scratch - they should act accordingly, shouldn't they? I don't think that's a "mechanics strategy" nor a "real world strategy" - I think it's a "pathfinder world strategy".
Although its a peculiar claim, I think if a pathfinder character were to act as if they were bound by our real world human limitations, it would be quite unrealistic. :o
I compare a 10th level character to someone like beowulf maybe.
Maybe I should use hercules instead. I can see him killing 100 people and despite being a demigod in mythology he is not demigod by PF standards so CR 10 or 11 fits. A few barbarian levels + the advanced template and I think we are good to go. :)
Maybe he has outsider HD and special abilities being a the son of a deity and all. :)
Anyone else find the 5ft step kind'of immersion breaking?
I always hated death spirals. Making it even harder to come back from a bad situation just makes everything worse, plus it's not really all that heroic ... the good guys always do better in a tight spot, not worse.
You mean the Negative Level that follows after being brought back from the dead?
It does seem like a poor mechanic, and just feels like it's been kept around as a sacred cow.
Anyone else find the 5ft step kind'of immersion breaking?
I do for creatures of a certain size, specifically anything below small and anything above large.
I always hated death spirals. Making it even harder to come back from a bad situation just makes everything worse, plus it's not really all that heroic ... the good guys always do better in a tight spot, not worse.You mean the Negative Level that follows after being brought back from the dead?
It does seem like a poor mechanic, and just feels like it's been kept around as a sacred cow.
It is not permanent which is not so bad unlike permanent negative levels in 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Permanent negative levels from death are more like a slap on the wrist now with the general ease at which they can be removed. Repeated application of negative levels in combat, now there's your death spiral. I'm not above doing that as a DM, but then again I also think almost any encounter can be "improved" by dropping in a leech swarm or two if it is in an applicable environment. I'm just a mean person, I think.
Scew that... just keep throwing more shadows at the party xD... The monk will finally feel awesome! And it will real quick make them understand the power of a creature with CR<5 XD
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
oh dear...
An incorporeal swarm that deals Str damage?
NOW THAT looks like something to throw at a party xD.
All martials everywhere quietly weeped as what little they could do was made even more useless xD.
If only there is a way to put a template on it to make it resistant to fire (Because... why not? Oh you got alchemist fire? thats cute...)
Anyone else find the 5ft step kind'of immersion breaking?
All of the inconsistencies having to do with size categories bug the hell outta me. Why don't big creatures have 10-ft+ steps? Why do smaller creatures have 5-ft steps at all?*
Going back to 3e, the writers were obviously going for some sense of internal consistency. But then someone said "Whoa guys, we can't make bigger and smaller creatures too consistent, 'cause the game has to be, ya know...playable."
And the result of course looks like something written by a fifth-grader who hasn't quite mastered multiplication.
*I can guess, but the reason doesn't make it any more consistent.
oh dear...
An incorporeal swarm that deals Str damage?
NOW THAT looks like something to throw at a party xD.
All martials everywhere quietly weeped as what little they could do was made even more useless xD.
If only there is a way to put a template on it to make it resistant to fire (Because... why not? Oh you got alchemist fire? thats cute...)
That thing is CR 4???!!!
It could quite easily end more than a few parties with APL 8!
lulz well if you ever feel like scaring your party this is the way to do it xD
I think that's more the fact that we tend to forget that tenth level characters aren't representative of real world people.
After all, in their universe, the tenth level hero can take on twenty of the city watch and expect to walk away with barely a scratch - they should act accordingly, shouldn't they? I don't think that's a "mechanics strategy" nor a "real world strategy" - I think it's a "pathfinder world strategy".
Although its a peculiar claim, I think if a pathfinder character were to act as if they were bound by our real world human limitations, it would be quite unrealistic. :o
Well 20 is significantly less than 200. But stand there and go hit for hit is not really a tactic. Its rolling dice. When Robin Hood fought 20 town guards he moved around used things in the room, and did a variety of things to nullify their numbers.
Goblins/Moria Orcs little better than kobolds chased off the entire Fellowship Some of whom I would say are high enough level if converted to PF to high enough to qualify for these examples.
I guess I don't view PF characters as super heroes. I mean Hulk, Thor and Iron man can throw up 100 tons. That is far and away stronger than the 24 or 26 str barbarian.
At the end of the day I realize that in the game one shotting is rare but I still play like its possible. Not cowardly but aware that I am risking the hazard. I find it more heroic to think I might die from a stray arrow and than to think oh I have 124 hp so I can get nailed by 30 arrows and be just fine.
All of the inconsistencies having to do with size categories bug the hell outta me. Why don't big creatures have 10-ft+ steps? Why do smaller creatures have 5-ft steps at all?*
Eh. To me the problem has less to do with size as it does speed. After all, a 5-foot step is essentially described as a quick shift without dropping your defenses, so I mean, how effectively you cover that distance seems to be as important as anything else.
So it always bugged me that a creature with a base movespeed of 15 and a creature with a movespeed of... let's say 5000 have an identical 'quick step'.
Much moreso at least than a pixie and a giant with the same movespeed being able to shift similarly at least.
lulz well if you ever feel like scaring your party this is the way to do it xD
An incorporeal swarm... I might as well say "Martials. LOL.".
I feel tempted to throw it at the players of one of the games I run, but I think I'd consider it to be at least a CR 6... Most likely a CR 8.
^^^
I can say from experiance that the class is actually really cool, pretty fairly balanced, and very fun to play with LOTS of flavour.
After 10 years I enjoy Pathfinder and get cranky when I can't play my weekly game. That said I enjoy the whole d20 system somewhat immersion breaking, atleast when i started playing Shadowrun 3E. I love every mechanic aspect within it..
A specific mechanic would be the casting system for me.
Why does every fighter I make have to have Iron Will and Indomitable Faith?Good question. I've done just fine without them. : )Because they don't want to stab their party members in the face. Despite fighters getting picked on a lot they still hit really hard, and many GM's do not say "Oh Timmy has a weak will save, I will avoid charm person and dominate person, and fear, etc etc, so he can choose options he wants instead of options he needs".
Until that happens people will do what they can to maintain control over their characters, because sitting on the sidelines really annoys some people. Yes, I know that not every will save has you sitting on the sidelines. I am just giving reasons as to why people do it.
I'm aware of the ramifications; I just don't see it as a problem that requires every fighter to dump everything they can into solving. I accept that every character has a weakness and move on. Frankly, mind control/confusion/etc. just isn't that common in the campaigns I've been in--certainly not as common as the one with Marcus and the ill-fated rogue. If I thought the campaign would be that heavy on mind-affecting, then I could see weighting the character toward protecting oneself from it. If not, I'd rather build in other directions--unless the character's backstory suggests an unbreakable will for some reason.
More on-topic, it doesn't break immersion for me either with or without taking the feats, but it clearly does for some players.
I'm aware of the ramifications; I just don't see it as a problem that requires every fighter to dump everything they can into solving. I accept that every character has a weakness and move on. Frankly, mind control/confusion/etc. just isn't that common in the campaigns I've been in--certainly not as common as the one with Marcus and the ill-fated rogue. If I thought the campaign would be that heavy on mind-affecting, then I could see weighting the character toward protecting oneself from it. If not, I'd rather build in other directions--unless the character's backstory suggests an unbreakable will for some reason.Why does every fighter I make have to have Iron Will and Indomitable Faith?Good question. I've done just fine without them. : )Because they don't want to stab their party members in the face. Despite fighters getting picked on a lot they still hit really hard, and many GM's do not say "Oh Timmy has a weak will save, I will avoid charm person and dominate person, and fear, etc etc, so he can choose options he wants instead of options he needs".
Until that happens people will do what they can to maintain control over their characters, because sitting on the sidelines really annoys some people. Yes, I know that not every will save has you sitting on the sidelines. I am just giving reasons as to why people do it.
The problem is that Will saves are used for more than resisting charms... most SoS spells fall into the will save catagory (SoDs tend to fall into the fort save side of things). A lot of debuffs also tend to fall into the will save. Illusions are almost all will save (nothing is worse than when you are a martial and you are wasting your time attacking illusions everywhere. It is also a very good way to break apart the party so you can focus on the casters).
And as you progress higher in level, there are so many creatures with SLAs that target will that it gets rediculous.
I'm aware of the ramifications; I just don't see it as a problem that requires every fighter to dump everything they can into solving. I accept that every character has a weakness and move on. Frankly, mind control/confusion/etc. just isn't that common in the campaigns I've been in--certainly not as common as the one with Marcus and the ill-fated rogue. If I thought the campaign would be that heavy on mind-affecting, then I could see weighting the character toward protecting oneself from it. If not, I'd rather build in other directions--unless the character's backstory suggests an unbreakable will for some reason.Why does every fighter I make have to have Iron Will and Indomitable Faith?Good question. I've done just fine without them. : )Because they don't want to stab their party members in the face. Despite fighters getting picked on a lot they still hit really hard, and many GM's do not say "Oh Timmy has a weak will save, I will avoid charm person and dominate person, and fear, etc etc, so he can choose options he wants instead of options he needs".
Until that happens people will do what they can to maintain control over their characters, because sitting on the sidelines really annoys some people. Yes, I know that not every will save has you sitting on the sidelines. I am just giving reasons as to why people do it.
The problem is that Will saves are used for more than resisting charms... most SoS spells fall into the will save catagory (SoDs tend to fall into the fort save side of things). A lot of debuffs also tend to fall into the will save. Illusions are almost all will save (nothing is worse than when you are a martial and you are wasting your time attacking illusions everywhere. It is also a very good way to break apart the party so you can focus on the casters).
And as you progress higher in level, there are so many creatures with SLAs that target...
Again, every character has a weakness. I'd find it much more immersion-breaking for a character to not have an Achilles' heel of some sort. Invincible heroes are as unbelievable as they are boring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, every character has a weakness. I'd find it much more immersion-breaking for a character to not have an Achilles' heel of some sort. Invincible heroes are as unbelievable as they are boring.
I think there is a break down in communication. Even after investment the fighter's will save is still a weakness, it's just not auto-fail.
I'm aware of the ramifications; I just don't see it as a problem that requires every fighter to dump everything they can into solving.
I dont think one trait and one feat count as "dumping everything". Yes I am aware you were not being literal but you still make it sound like a heavy investment. A fighter can give up one feat and probably more. He can also get a 14 wisdom and still put out significant damage. I really see no reason not to do it. Now if it required two traits and 4 or 5 feats or an extreme loss of combat ability that would be different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of the inconsistencies having to do with size categories bug the hell outta me. Why don't big creatures have 10-ft+ steps? Why do smaller creatures have 5-ft steps at all?*Eh. To me the problem has less to do with size as it does speed. After all, a 5-foot step is essentially described as a quick shift without dropping your defenses, so I mean, how effectively you cover that distance seems to be as important as anything else.
So it always bugged me that a creature with a base movespeed of 15 and a creature with a movespeed of... let's say 5000 have an identical 'quick step'.
Much moreso at least than a pixie and a giant with the same movespeed being able to shift similarly at least.
I suspect the main reason five foot steps never go beyond five feet is that it would screw martials even more than the current rules do. Martials really don't need to face monsters that can ten foot step away and deny them a full attack.
I suspect the main reason five foot steps never go beyond five feet is that it would screw martials even more than the current rules do. Martials really don't need to face monsters that can ten foot step away and deny them a full attack.
All of the inconsistencies having to do with size categories bug the hell outta me. Why don't big creatures have 10-ft+ steps? Why do smaller creatures have 5-ft steps at all?*Eh. To me the problem has less to do with size as it does speed. After all, a 5-foot step is essentially described as a quick shift without dropping your defenses, so I mean, how effectively you cover that distance seems to be as important as anything else.
So it always bugged me that a creature with a base movespeed of 15 and a creature with a movespeed of... let's say 5000 have an identical 'quick step'.
Much moreso at least than a pixie and a giant with the same movespeed being able to shift similarly at least.
Back when I started 3E the first thing to annoy me was the full-attack mechanics. Real conversation incoming:
"So if I move 5' I can do 7 attacks, but if I move 10' I get 1 attack?!"
"Yeah, that's how that works."
"Not even half the attacks, I can't get 3?"
"Nope."
"That's so stupid."
*Shrug*
It became just the first of a long list of issues I personally have with this game. The short version of this list is the "fiddly bits", or how weirdly specific it gets in some of its parts that require distinction in some way.
Denied dex and flat-footed are not the same thing.
Some classes grant speed bonuses, that's good, but some are different types of bonuses.
Racial traits and race traits are completely different things.
And so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of the inconsistencies having to do with size categories bug the hell outta me. Why don't big creatures have 10-ft+ steps? Why do smaller creatures have 5-ft steps at all?*Eh. To me the problem has less to do with size as it does speed. After all, a 5-foot step is essentially described as a quick shift without dropping your defenses, so I mean, how effectively you cover that distance seems to be as important as anything else.
So it always bugged me that a creature with a base movespeed of 15 and a creature with a movespeed of... let's say 5000 have an identical 'quick step'.
Much moreso at least than a pixie and a giant with the same movespeed being able to shift similarly at least.
Ah yes, well, I speak under the general assumption that larger creatures have higher speeds. :)
I suspect the main reason five foot steps never go beyond five feet is that it would screw martials even more than the current rules do. Martials really don't need to face monsters that can ten foot step away and deny them a full attack.
Bingo. It's also why each size category's weight and height ranges follow the square-cube law, but standard space and reach do not. The 3e team obviously realized that real consistency was just too problematic, and so they ended up writing something that looks like it came from an early Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? reject.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember music being played during football games or before and how that got me pumped.
So if the mere mortals of today can effect morale in near-combat situations, then a 10th level bard demi-god should be able to.
...I'm aware of the ramifications; I just don't see it as a problem that requires every fighter to dump everything they can into solving. I accept that every character has a weakness and move on. Frankly, mind control/confusion/etc. just isn't that common in the campaigns I've been in--certainly not as common as the one with Marcus and the ill-fated rogue. If I thought the campaign would be that heavy on mind-affecting, then I could see weighting the character toward protecting oneself from it. If not, I'd rather build in other directions--unless the character's backstory suggests an unbreakable will for some reason.Why does every fighter I make have to have Iron Will and Indomitable Faith?Good question. I've done just fine without them. : )Because they don't want to stab their party members in the face. Despite fighters getting picked on a lot they still hit really hard, and many GM's do not say "Oh Timmy has a weak will save, I will avoid charm person and dominate person, and fear, etc etc, so he can choose options he wants instead of options he needs".
Until that happens people will do what they can to maintain control over their characters, because sitting on the sidelines really annoys some people. Yes, I know that not every will save has you sitting on the sidelines. I am just giving reasons as to why people do it.
The problem is that Will saves are used for more than resisting charms... most SoS spells fall into the will save catagory (SoDs tend to fall into the fort save side of things). A lot of debuffs also tend to fall into the will save. Illusions are almost all will save (nothing is worse than when you are a martial and you are wasting your time attacking illusions everywhere. It is also a very good way to break apart the party so you can focus on the casters).
And as you progress higher in level, there are so many
Except that I never said to make you invincible... There is no way you are going to make yourself "good on all but a nat 1" on will saves vs a caster. But you CAN make yourself so that you are not all "ok nat 20!!!! Come to papa!!!" When you have a SEVERE weakness to a HUGE portion of the game you end up either a liability or a waste of space...
We WILL...
We WILL...
ROCK YOU
Oh, I absolutely agree! It's just that from practical experience fighting, I would say singing at the same time is implausible and hence immersion breaking... if one were inclined to real-world issues breaking ones PF immersion.I remember music being played during football games or before and how that got me pumped.
So if the mere mortals of today can effect morale in near-combat situations, then a 10th level bard demi-god should be able to.
Plenty of historical examples. Bagpipes or drums leading soldier on. The St. Crispin's Day speech. (Which has basis in history altho yes, WS made up the text).
My Bard uses oratory, not singing for example.
Again, every character has a weakness. I'd find it much more immersion-breaking for a character to not have an Achilles' heel of some sort. Invincible heroes are as unbelievable as they are boring.Good thing the person you were arguing with said literally nothing of the sort.
Seriously that's an absurdly disingenuous statement to make.
Don't be so melodramatic. No offense was intended, and I think that was clear. There's no call to assume dishonest motives.
Except that I never said to make you invincible... There is no way you are going to make yourself "good on all but a nat 1" on will saves vs a caster. But you CAN make yourself so that you are not all "ok nat 20!!!! Come to papa!!!" When you have a SEVERE weakness to a HUGE portion of the game you end up either a liability or a waste of space...
Forget the invincible part; it's a pretty mild hyperbole to match the much more severe hyperbole going around the thread.
In my experience, it isn't a huge portion of the game; in most campaigns I roll a Will save maybe once or twice a session on average. The sessions where they do come up tend to have about five or six, and the rest have none. And I've certainly never felt (nor been called) "a liability or a waste of space". Beyond that, it's very rare that I need a natural 20 to succeed on a saving throw--even a weak one for the character.
Apart from that, what's wrong with failing a save every now and then? You might get dominated or confused? Cool! That's fun to play out. Failure can be every bit as entertaining as success--frequently more so.
(Over/under on "you're just in it to screw your party over: 2 replies.)
Failing a save will happen, but that does not mean nothing should be done to try to prevent it. By that logic why bother improving any save.
As much as I prefer to not kill a party member, I also prefer for the party barbarian/fighter/etc to not kill my character. In case you are wondering it really happened, due to confusion. The player dumped wisdom, and the caster was behind a wall of mooks so after we dispelled the first confusion he just cast it again. That is just good strategy on his part, so I can't complain about that. One of those mooks hit pretty hard so the archers had to take him out instead of readying an action to disrupt a spell.
Also how often they come up is not the issue. They only need to fail once to end a character's existence. However since the subject is here, how often they come up will vary by game. "I only see ____ once every ___ games", has no bearing on other people's game.
Failing a save will happen, but that does not mean nothing should be done to try to prevent it. By that logic why bother improving any save.
As much as I prefer to not kill a party member, I also prefer for the party barbarian/fighter/etc to not kill my character. In case you are wondering it really happened, due to confusion. The player dumped wisdom, and the caster was behind a wall of mooks so after we dispelled the first confusion he just cast it again. That is just good strategy on his part, so I can't complain about that. One of those mooks hit pretty hard so the archers had to take him out instead of readying an action to disrupt a spell.Also how often they come up is not the issue. They only need to fail once to end a character's existence. However since the subject is here, how often they come up will vary by game. "I only see ____ once every ___ games", has no bearing on other people's game.
Before I go too far off topic: wasn't this thread about breaking immersion rather than the merits of plugging holes in a character's defenses? Getting dominated shouldn't break immersion. If it does, it should be tossed from the game. That's more of a "I don't want my character/party to die" problem.
Yes, absolutely! You don't need to persuade me bards should exist in concept! But these things did not generally happen at the same time as the specific individuals doing the performance were also fighting. Because singing requires breath, and bagpipes use both hands, and speeches happen before all the noisy metal-slashing bit because after that you can't hear them.Plenty of historical examples. Bagpipes or drums leading soldier on. The St. Crispin's Day speech. (Which has basis in history altho yes, WS made up the text).
My Bard uses oratory, not singing for example.
Historical (real-world) examples only have so much relevance when the performance in question is sorcerous in nature. Fictional examples of this trope abound.
Before I go too far off topic: wasn't this thread about breaking immersion rather than the merits of plugging holes in a character's defenses? Getting dominated shouldn't break immersion. If it does, it should be tossed from the game. That's more of a "I don't want my character/party to die" problem.Failing a save will happen, but that does not mean nothing should be done to try to prevent it. By that logic why bother improving any save.
As much as I prefer to not kill a party member, I also prefer for the party barbarian/fighter/etc to not kill my character. In case you are wondering it really happened, due to confusion. The player dumped wisdom, and the caster was behind a wall of mooks so after we dispelled the first confusion he just cast it again. That is just good strategy on his part, so I can't complain about that. One of those mooks hit pretty hard so the archers had to take him out instead of readying an action to disrupt a spell.Also how often they come up is not the issue. They only need to fail once to end a character's existence. However since the subject is here, how often they come up will vary by game. "I only see ____ once every ___ games", has no bearing on other people's game.
I was just answering a question as to why fighters plug up defenses. If the "why" is understand I guess the subtopic has served its purpose.