How do you play bad will save characters?


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Lamontius wrote:
how can you guys not be good at everything all the time

Because not wanting to play characters with bad will save is the same thing as wanting to be good at everything... Of course.


The Human Diversion wrote:
raise dead can't even bring someone back if they died to something considered a "death effect" - I don't remember specifically how the rules work, but I would say anything that kills you without doing hit point damage would be a "death effect"

While thank you for pointing that out I'd like to point out disintegrate is not a death effect. Neither is PK. Only a small array of spells (Slay living, finger of death, circle of death, death knell) actually have the [death] descriptor, most of which are bad, so I'm not that familiar with it.

Quote:
But what if the enemy chooses to use an action that does not trigger that kind of Will save? What if it lacks those kind of attacks altogether? What if a PC goes before the enemy and prevents or discourages it from using an action that triggers that kind of Will save? As before, your arguments are making assumptions.

It's not about that enemy. It's about the next, and the next, and the next. Eventually you WILL have to make a will save especially in higher tier play. The consequences of failed will saves can be death, being a mindless rabbit, being dominated, confused, murderous commanded, greater commanded, exct. People trumpeting fortitude saves as better than will saves forget there are plenty of save or die's in the will save category.

Quote:
If they're all murder hobos who have in their normal course of behavior betray and murder their friends, it is clearly self-destructive to provoke one of your fellow murder hobos into murdering you.

It's definitely not self destructive to murderhobo them before they murderhobo you. Especially since this game rewards offense meaning he who strikes first often strikes last.

Quote:
You have an odd idea of alignment if you think that it's well within someone's normal course of behavior to attack and kill a friend of theirs unless they're lawful good..

The average pathfinder is a complete sociopath who kills anyone in his way regardless of alignment. Do you realize how many characters have killed neutral monsters in "Self defense" when they could have ran or walked around or diplomacy with them? Unless you're RPing your alignment or doing things which are actively benevolent it's highly probable that you too would in universe be considered a sociopath. Pathfinders are a storm of destruction and leave more bodies in their wake than any other group in Golarion.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Undone wrote:
The average pathfinder is a complete sociopath who kills anyone in his way regardless of alignment. Do you realize how many characters have killed neutral monsters in "Self defense" when they could have ran or walked around or diplomacy with them? Unless you're RPing your alignment or doing things which are actively benevolent it's highly probable that you too would in universe be considered a sociopath. Pathfinders are a storm of destruction and leave more bodies in their wake than any other group in Golarion.

While this may be true in your games, it certainly isn't in any I play in. If I have "G" in my alignment you'd better believe I'm trying nonviolent conflict resolution first and killing is a last resort.

Heck even our neutral group currently playing Skull&Shackles doesn't wantonly murder crews we attack as pirates. We take their stuff, sure, but we bandage them up and drop them off at the next port, sometimes ransoming them off.

I will admit however that our style may be the exception. I have had GMs at conventions boggle at our good characters' attempts to converse with monsters who were obviously just there to be attacked. Sometimes it even works.

Sometimes I do play psychopaths. But when I do I give them an "E" alignment like they deserve.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
While this may be true in your games, it certainly isn't in any I play in. If I have "G" in my alignment you'd better believe I'm trying nonviolent conflict resolution first and killing is a last resort.

Ok.

ryric wrote:
Heck even our neutral group currently playing Skull&Shackles doesn't wantonly murder crews we attack as pirates. We rob them, sure, but we bandage them up and drop them off at the next port, sometimes ransoming them off.

I about fell out of my chair laughing.

ryric wrote:
I will admit however that our style may be the exception. I have had GMs at conventions boggle at our good characters' attempts to converse with monsters who were obviously just there to be attacked. Sometimes it even works.

I've played in PFS with at least 100 different people. There are about 4 who I distinctly remember as trying to maintain their G in alignment pretty hard and would give those four additional saves. The rest unlikely to even notice but in game they'd be considered sociopaths.

ryric wrote:
Sometimes I do play psychopaths. But when I do I give them an "E" alignment like they deserve.

Fair, but the overwhelming majority of players I've GM'ed for do not deserve that second save unless in character it would cause a fall (They wouldn't fall because of dominate but if they would it should be a second save) because the vast majority of characters kill enemies and kill who they are told to kill by those in power in PFS, in home games it's whatever you want though.

Sovereign Court

Undone wrote:


I've played in PFS with at least 100 different people. There are about 4 who I distinctly remember as trying to maintain their G in alignment pretty hard and would give those four additional saves. The rest unlikely to even notice but in game they'd be considered sociopaths.

Congrats on having different anecdotal evidence than Ryric or me.

Pretty much everyone I've played with in PFS - and that's a long list - has played good-aligned characters to avoid combat first and only attack things without provocation when they're blatantly evil or a recognized enemy (a runelord, someone from a previous adventure, a demon or devil, etc).


Kudaku wrote:
Wouldn't a Hold Person scroll have a save DC of 13?

13 antipaladin, bard, cleric, oracle, inquisitor or witch, 14 wizard or sorcerer. If that's too low for your low will save character there is the higher powered hold person, mass scroll with a save DC of 20, but at 2,275gp each they usually wait for level 12+ to become part of the basic kit.

Shadow Lodge

So this insistence on having a high will save seems to boil down to the outlook that the worst thing that can happen to you in a pf game is loosing control of your character?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:
So this insistence on having a high will save seems to boil down to the outlook that the worst thing that can happen to you in a pf game is loosing control of your character?

When coupled with the revelation that the classes suffering from low Will saves are often the classes that can stab even a fully-equipped PC into oblivion, yes.

A Fort/Reflex save can kill you or debuff you, but a Will save can kill you, debuff you, or kill your entire party.


cnetarian wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Wouldn't a Hold Person scroll have a save DC of 13?
13 antipaladin, bard, cleric, oracle, inquisitor or witch, 14 wizard or sorcerer. If that's too low for your low will save character there is the higher powered hold person, mass scroll with a save DC of 20, but at 2,275gp each they usually wait for level 12+ to become part of the basic kit.

In that case I can't help but think that Matthew Downie's reply was fairly on the nose.


Hmmm

Don't dump my Wis score (On the other hand the difference between an 8 and a 12 is +2). Take Iron Will and if it seems I'm getting thumped often anyway consider taking Improved Iron Will. And well if I am the cleric/oracle/wizard etc. etc. I am not going to twiddle my thumbs while the party fighter, rogue etc. go and get dominated etc.. I am going to buff and select spells that insure my companions and myself continue to operate effectively.


I play bad will save characters by failing my will saves more than not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:
So this insistence on having a high will save seems to boil down to the outlook that the worst thing that can happen to you in a pf game is loosing control of your character?

That is really underplaying the impact of failing some bad save. You could also be looking at sitting out the next hour or so of gameplay while your PC sits there drooling and doing nothing due to being stunned, feared, dazed etc.


andreww wrote:
gnoams wrote:
So this insistence on having a high will save seems to boil down to the outlook that the worst thing that can happen to you in a pf game is loosing control of your character?
That is really underplaying the impact of failing some bad save. You could also be looking at sitting out the next hour or so of gameplay while your PC sits there drooling and doing nothing due to being stunned, feared, dazed etc.

Yup. It's both unfun and dangerous.

Quote:
I am not going to twiddle my thumbs while the party fighter, rogue etc. go and get dominated etc.. I am going to buff and select spells that insure my companions and myself continue to operate effectively.

There's also no spell to prevent the neutral wizard mercenary the bad guy hired from dominating you.


JJ Jordan wrote:
I play bad will save characters by failing my will saves more than not.

This.

I hate getting charmed as much as the next guy... but they're just a part of the game. Some classes are weaker then others in various places. Certainly doesn't make them unplayable on any level.

As it stands, I had a rogue that was getting confused WAY too often, ended up grabbing Iron Will. problem solved.

Frankly, I fails as many saves with paladin as I do with anyone else... '1' always fails, and I roll that WAY more then statistics say I should... No super hat will help with a '1'

Scarab Sages

At the level most games take place, there are only a few points difference between the fighter and wizard on Will saves.

Not enough for me to stress over.


No character is going to be good in every situation. The fighter is weak against mentally dominating force. The wizard is weak against physically dominating force. This is one of the reasons parties are mixed. If one class was the best, why not run a party of all that class? You don't, because there isn't. When the fighter gets dominated by the baddie, the focus becomes either free the fighter, incapacitate him, or get rid of the baddie as fast as possible. The nice thing is, if the fighter has a weak will save - why not hit him with a different debilitating effect that will make him inert, instead of working for the enemy?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

CraziFuzzy wrote:
No character is going to be good in every situation. The fighter is weak against mentally dominating force. The wizard is weak against physically dominating force. This is one of the reasons parties are mixed. If one class was the best, why not run a party of all that class? You don't, because there isn't. When the fighter gets dominated by the baddie, the focus becomes either free the fighter, incapacitate him, or get rid of the baddie as fast as possible. The nice thing is, if the fighter has a weak will save - why not hit him with a different debilitating effect that will make him inert, instead of working for the enemy?

That's been brought up several times before. Apparently in some people's games, the challenge is so high that having to spend even a single PC action undoing something the bad guy did means TPK. While I wish those people fun in their games, I'm glad my groups don't play that way.


ryric wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
No character is going to be good in every situation. The fighter is weak against mentally dominating force. The wizard is weak against physically dominating force. This is one of the reasons parties are mixed. If one class was the best, why not run a party of all that class? You don't, because there isn't. When the fighter gets dominated by the baddie, the focus becomes either free the fighter, incapacitate him, or get rid of the baddie as fast as possible. The nice thing is, if the fighter has a weak will save - why not hit him with a different debilitating effect that will make him inert, instead of working for the enemy?
That's been brought up several times before. Apparently in some people's games, the challenge is so high that having to spend even a single PC action undoing something the bad guy did means TPK. While I wish those people fun in their games, I'm glad my groups don't play that way.

I would argue that the challenge of that encounter was simply too high. Bad rolls happen. But when there is a 75% chance the fighter is going to fail a save, and failing that save would lead to TPK, that's a badly designed encounter. To ensure the game continues, the chance of avoiding a TPK should be FAR better than 25% (and should be far better than 75%).


CraziFuzzy wrote:
No character is going to be good in every situation. The fighter is weak against mentally dominating force. The wizard is weak against physically dominating force. This is one of the reasons parties are mixed.

It's not difficult to make a character that has all the strengths of a traditional Fighter and no Will save vulnerability.


Matthew Downie wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
No character is going to be good in every situation. The fighter is weak against mentally dominating force. The wizard is weak against physically dominating force. This is one of the reasons parties are mixed.
It's not difficult to make a character that has all the strengths of a traditional Fighter and no Will save vulnerability.

Well, I wouldn't say 'all the strengths' Its going to take a feats, magic items, or other classes to do it, all of which would take SOMETHING away from the character. Whether that matters is situational (just like having a low will save is a situational risk).


Sure, but in most cases you gain overall rather than lose by not being a low-Will-save Fighter. Superstitious Barbarian? Better saves, better skills, similar or better damage output, faster movement, more hit points. Paladin? Better saves, a wide variety of superpowers. Inquisitor? Better saves, better skills, good damage output, slight loss of hit points, cool spells and abilities. Zen Archer? Better saves, similar damage output, good touch AC...

If you insist on playing Fighter, the trade-offs for improving your Will Save are usually worth it. Playing with a low Will save are a sign that you either lack system knowledge, or you're making a character with a deliberate weakness for your own amusement.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
The fighter is weak against mentally dominating force. The wizard is weak against physically dominating force. This is one of the reasons parties are mixed. If one class was the best, why not run a party of all [i]that class? [/i] You don't, because there isn't. When the fighter gets dominated by the baddie, the focus becomes either free the fighter, incapacitate him, or get rid of the baddie as fast as possible. The nice thing is, if the fighter has a weak will save - why not hit him with a different debilitating effect that will make him inert, instead of working for the enemy?

This is simply not true. Emergency force sphere, mirror image, overland flight, polymorph effects, every CC ability in the game makes the wizard better at that than the fighter.

Druid, cleric, shaman, and summoner all fit the italics description. A group of 4 of any combination or a single class of them would be very much the ideal party.

Quote:


That's been brought up several times before. Apparently in some people's games, the challenge is so high that having to spend even a single PC action undoing something the bad guy did means TPK. While I wish those people fun in their games, I'm glad my groups don't play that way.

So init go like this

BG - 19
Fighter - 17
Wizard - 17-
Other - 15
Cleric - 5

BG confuses the party. Fighter turns and kills wizard or cleric before his turn because he has damage.

Quote:
I would argue that the challenge of that encounter was simply too high. Bad rolls happen. But when there is a 75% chance the fighter is going to fail a save, and failing that save would lead to TPK, that's a badly designed encounter. To ensure the game continues, the chance of avoiding a TPK should be FAR better than 25% (and should be far better than 75%).

Spells which target will saves are not bad encounter design. Having bad will saves is bad character design.


I think DMs like it when PCs have a low save or two. I've played PCs in the past with strong all around defenses, and the DMs generally seemed to really hate it. Now I've got a PC who got turned into a stooge one time via Suggestion and another time via Dominate, and the DM loved it. In another game I have a PC who has become shaken from failed Will saves multiple times, and everybody at the table was amused.

I still think low Will saves are bad primarily because of the negative impact they can have on other PCs though. A low touch AC or lack of grapple defenses can get your PC killed just as easily if the DM decides to target it. Often it can be costly to shore up these weaknesses, so people either embrace them or just hope the DM won't poke the soft spot too often.


Undone wrote:


So init go like this

BG - 19
Fighter - 17
Wizard - 17-
Other - 15
Cleric - 5

BG confuses the party. Fighter turns and kills wizard or cleric before his turn because he has damage.

Assuming this initiative order, that the Cleric and Wizard are both the nearest creature and within a 5' step of the Fighter (so he can get off a full attack and kill them), and that they don't have defenses up which would prevent a full-attack gib.

If the Fighter has a 25% chance of failing his Will save, there's still only a 6.25% chance of this scenario playing out, since a confused Fighter has a 75% chance of NOT attacking the BBEG. If the Fighter has a 25% chance to fail his Will save, here is the breakdown:

  • 81.25% - Fighter acts normally (though 6.25% of this he's 'confused')
  • 6.25% - He babbles incoherently
  • 6.25% - He damages himself ~4.5 + str mod
  • 6.25% - He attacks the nearest creature, and immediately kills them, because they're super squishy.

BTW, in this scenario being a Superstitious Barbarian doesn't really help either ... since the BG went first, you don't get to enter Rage to get your bonus.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:

So init go like this

BG - 19
Fighter - 17
Wizard - 17-
Other - 15
Cleric - 5

BG confuses the party. Fighter turns and kills wizard or cleric before his turn because he has damage.

Oh I understand that sort of situation can happen. Upthread someone made the argument that if init was like this:

BG - 19
Cleric - 17
Wizard - 17-
Fighter - 15
Other - 8

BG confuses party, cleric spends his turn fixing the confused fighter(presumably instead of laying the smackdown)-

-That the one "wasted" turn of the cleric meant that the BG would win. The implication was that your games weren't that tough then you were playing in "easy mode." That's the sort of game I'm glad I'm not playing in, where hyper-optimization and "one mistake or less efficient turn means death" rule the day. Again I'm happy that the people playing that way are having fun but that's not the style for me. I'm at the stage of my gaming where we're more trying to tell a good fantasy story using the rules as the mechanics; in a good story sometimes the hero gets mind controlled.


Assuming a 20 in primary stat and spell focus (Both seem reasonable for a 7th level caster) it's DC 20. You're probably level 5 or 6 (since BBEG's tend to be above level) or else you're likely facing two such saves at level 7 or 8. As such your save will likely be +1 Wisdom, +1 or 2 Base, +2 or 3 cloak, and at best +2 from a feat. Meaning you have between +4 and +8. So you have between a 60 and an 80% chance to fail it which leaves you a 18% chance to turn and kill someone.

The high will save cleric and wizard have significantly better than even odds with a +4 wisdom and good will saves or even just good will saves.

Bad will saves are a problem. A fundamental issue which are a problem not because they effect you but because they effect the other players at the table.


ryric wrote:
-That the one "wasted" turn of the cleric meant that the BG would win. The implication was that your games weren't that tough then you were playing in "easy mode." That's the sort of game I'm glad I'm not playing in, where hyper-optimization and "one mistake or less efficient turn means death" rule the day. Again I'm happy that the people playing that way are having fun but that's not the style for me. I'm at the stage of my gaming where we're more trying to tell a good fantasy story using the rules as the mechanics; in a good story sometimes the hero gets mind controlled.

^^^^Exactly this^^^^


A lv 5 wizard has a good save of 4. A poor save character has a save of 1. take the feat and you're 1 point below the good save. Take the trait too and you're equal to it. If you do this you'll have the same save up till lv8, when you'll fall 1 point behind.


Undone wrote:

Assuming a 20 in primary stat and spell focus (Both seem reasonable for a 7th level caster) it's DC 20. You're probably level 5 or 6 (since BBEG's tend to be above level) or else you're likely facing two such saves at level 7 or 8. As such your save will likely be +1 Wisdom, +1 or 2 Base, +2 or 3 cloak, and at best +2 from a feat. Meaning you have between +4 and +8. So you have between a 60 and an 80% chance to fail it which leaves you a 18% chance to turn and kill someone.

The high will save cleric and wizard have significantly better than even odds with a +4 wisdom and good will saves or even just good will saves.

Bad will saves are a problem. A fundamental issue which are a problem not because they effect you but because they effect the other players at the table.

First, 20 in a primary stat is pretty high for a level 7 NPC, and would normally assume you're using a stat-boosting spell or item (they don't have enough gold for the item, so it'll have to be a spell). And not every caster has Spell Focus: Enchantment.

Assuming the Fighter took Indomitable Faith (+1 Will) as a trait, and Iron Will (+2) as one of your 5 feats (6 if Human) as a Fighter. His Will saves are equal to the Wizard, unless the Wizard took those feats/traits, which few do. If he's a Dwarf, he's likely ahead of the Wizard in terms of making a save.

Almost every class in the game will regularly fail a DC 20 will save at level 5. The only classes that have a good chance to beat that save are: Paladins and high Wisdom casters.

In fact, a human level 5 Paladin (no Feats to boost saves, because she's a Paladin, but 10 Wis/18 Cha and a +2 Cloak of Resistance) has a 50% chance to fail that save. And that's about as "High Save" of a class as you normally get.


Undone wrote:

Assuming a 20 in primary stat and spell focus (Both seem reasonable for a 7th level caster) it's DC 20. You're probably level 5 or 6 (since BBEG's tend to be above level) or else you're likely facing two such saves at level 7 or 8. As such your save will likely be +1 Wisdom, +1 or 2 Base, +2 or 3 cloak, and at best +2 from a feat. Meaning you have between +4 and +8. So you have between a 60 and an 80% chance to fail it which leaves you a 18% chance to turn and kill someone.

The high will save cleric and wizard have significantly better than even odds with a +4 wisdom and good will saves or even just good will saves.

Bad will saves are a problem. A fundamental issue which are a problem not because they effect you but because they effect the other players at the table.

I think you math is slightly off... isn't that 55 to 75% for the fighter?

The level 5 or 6 Wizard: +0 Wisdom, +4 or +5 Base, +2 or +3 cloak, and no feats. Meaning you have between a +6 and +8, between a 55 and 65% chance to fail. I'm not sure how that's "significantly better than even odds". Cleric notwithstanding. If you are arguing all wizards have 12 Wis or better, my experience is radically different. I've never seen a Wizard at my table with a Wisdom above 10 as they tend to favor Con and Dex. If the Fighter fails, he might one round the Wizard... if the Wizard fails he probably has a really good chance of 1 rounding the entire rest of the group. But hey, if you think a 0 to 10% difference (10 to 20% without Iron Will) in saves is a "fundamental issue", then just grant fighters good will saves and the Iron Will feats for free at appropriate levels and call it done.

Lastly, it isn't 50% chance of doing nothing. If *all* of the creatures you encounter are throwing out will save effects AND always targetting the Fighter AND AND you subsequently fail *half* of them then there are several things at play: You are in a poorly designed or overly focused adventure and probably should have known that up front and/or your DM is "special". If this situation is true for you, then you should never, ever play a fighter... ever... I said never right? Even if you fix a Fighters Will save and/or grant them Iron Will, do not under any circumstance play a Fighter. Always, always, every single time, play a Wisdom based class with a good Will save and only with a Wisdom bonus race. And also, take Iron Will if at all possible. Oh and be sure to dump Dex and boost Con, because failed Reflex saves are just damage, right? Because if your game is going to exist and play at the extreme end of the spectrum, then you will only survive with a character built at the extreme end of the spectrum.

As someone else said, I'm glad I don't run or play in that sort of environment.


Thing is, I hate mind control in stories in general. It's generally a lazy way to get characters who would never fight each other to fight each other.


Ventnor wrote:
Thing is, I hate mind control in stories in general. It's generally a lazy way to get characters who would never fight each other to fight each other.

If your mind control stories only involve "fighting", then you need to broaden your story base. That's the absolute least of it's creative uses.


Ventnor wrote:
Thing is, I hate mind control in stories in general. It's generally a lazy way to get characters who would never fight each other to fight each other.

This seems to be one of the longest standing problems with comics.

They don't even bother with mind control anymore, though. They just make their heroes douchebags from the get go and have crossover hero-fights.

Scarab Sages

Undone wrote:

Assuming a 20 in primary stat and spell focus (Both seem reasonable for a 7th level caster) it's DC 20. You're probably level 5 or 6 (since BBEG's tend to be above level) or else you're likely facing two such saves at level 7 or 8. As such your save will likely be +1 Wisdom, +1 or 2 Base, +2 or 3 cloak, and at best +2 from a feat. Meaning you have between +4 and +8. So you have between a 60 and an 80% chance to fail it which leaves you a 18% chance to turn and kill someone.

The high will save cleric and wizard have significantly better than even odds with a +4 wisdom and good will saves or even just good will saves.

Bad will saves are a problem. A fundamental issue which are a problem not because they effect you but because they effect the other players at the table.

My level 6 Paladin/Oracle fails a DC 20 will save 50% of the time. If you are expecting anyone else to pass on a regular basis, you need to reexamine your encounters difficulty levels.


Darkbridger wrote:


I think you math is slightly off... isn't that 55 to 75% for the fighter?

Sorry, my bad.

Darkbridger wrote:
The level 5 or 6 Wizard: +0 Wisdom, +4 or +5 Base, +2 or +3 cloak, and no feats. Meaning you have between a +6 and +8, between a 55 and 65% chance to fail. I'm not sure how that's "significantly better than even odds". Cleric notwithstanding. If you are arguing all wizards have 12 Wis or better, my experience is radically different. I've never seen a Wizard at my table with a Wisdom above 10 as they tend to favor Con and Dex. If the Fighter fails, he might one round the Wizard... if the Wizard fails he probably has a really good chance of 1 rounding the entire rest of the group. But hey, if you think a 0 to 10% difference (10 to 20% without Iron Will) in saves is a "fundamental issue", then just grant fighters good will saves and the Iron Will feats for free at appropriate levels and call it done.

Whoa there. You've made some pretty poor assumptions.

1) The wizard and fighter have the same amount of gold but the wizard only needs 2 or 3 items, pretty much ever (headband and save cloak, eventually a con or dex belt) The wizard should almost always be 1 - 2 points ahead on the cloak+ioun stone front.
2) The wizard has built in class features which bump saves (heroism).
3) After SF/GSF/SP/GSP there's really no required feats and SP/GSP can be replaced if you conjure or buff. The wizard can easily get those feats as well.
4) Wizards because of 3 often have improved init, can be diviners, or have an initiative bonus spell (Heightened awareness) and have a statistically high probability of beating the will save by going first and launching their rocket first. Non barbarian/pummeler's do not have a chance to 1 round someone 30 feet away without critting.
5) 4,650 gp > 4,000 gp last I checked. It's within NPC wealth to have a 17 int, int bump for level and a +2 item.

Darkbridger wrote:
Lastly, it isn't 50% chance of doing nothing. If *all* of the creatures you encounter are throwing out will save effects AND always targetting the Fighter AND AND you subsequently fail *half* of them then there are several things at play: You are in a poorly designed or overly focused adventure and probably should have known that up front...

I disagree. The mark of a well designed game above 6th level is that the encounters have dangerous magic. Straight up melee smashing while they trade full attacks tends to be the most boring possible way to do combat.

Quote:
Always, always, every single time, play a Wisdom based class with a good Will save and only with a Wisdom bonus race. And also, take Iron Will if at all possible. Oh and be sure to dump Dex and boost Con, because failed Reflex saves are just damage, right? Because if your game is going to exist and play at the extreme end of the spectrum, then you will only survive with a character built at the extreme end of the spectrum.

I tend to play wisdom based casters or at least classes with a save bonus. Charisma based casters with divine protection are good too. As to dex dumping the only reason it can't happen is initiative which is king. If I can take Noble Scion or a class feature which swaps to another stat I dump dex to 7.


Undone wrote:
stuff

And as usual, the goalposts move. Carry on then.


I think part of the reason failing a will save is such an onerous thing is that of the three kinds of saves it's the one most likely to hurt your party as much as it hurts you.

Fort or Reflex saves, when blown, can leave the character incapacitated or dead. Will saves can incapacitate or kill a PC but ALSO carry the risk of making that PC actively hinder the party as opposed to simply becoming a non-factor in combat without outside assistance.

As people are so quick to point out all the time, Pathfinder's a team game. Abilities that take you out of the team's game plan suck, but abilities that force you to DISRUPT the game plan are worse.

Besides, can any of us honestly say we've NEVER been in a campaign where the GM has something lying around, a PC approaches it or picks it up, and something bad requiring a will save happens? If getting too close to a weird orb suddenly triggers a Murderous Command on a paladin, the group's pretty save unless he rolls a 1. If it's a fighter or rogue checking it out? Yeah, someone else is probably getting shanked, and then it's a coin toss if it's you or the GM the person who just lost a bunch of HP because you blew a will save gets mad at.

As for the whole thing with the wizards being on the other end from our friend the fighter, as they are in so many things, I will point out that after INT, their most important stat, the Wizard is always pumping their dex to go first and hit with their rays and their con so they have some hit points on hand when their magical defenses can't keep EVERYTHING off them. Both of these attributes boost the weak saves, and as someone else pointed out, Wizards are usually able to spend the money they save on fancy magic armor and weapons on having better cloaks and defensive wondrous items earlier in the game. Fighty McGee and his mates, however, shore up Will Saves beyond the feats and trait by boosting wisdom, which the Fighter doesn't get a whole lot of use out of besides boosting his will save because he only has one skill or ability besides Profession that needs a positive wisdom modifier to be useful, and that's Survival (or perception, if you have spent your other trait on Seeker like you're probably going to want to).


Totally thought this was something different from the title.

But for the actual topic:
Yes, a fighter will want his belt for physical stats. But I have also been known to purchase a headband for wisdom.
Fighters have lots of feats. Taking iron will or improved iron will is not too onerous.
Ion stone for protection from evil or I buy a wand of it to give to the caster.
Take some ranks in UMD so I can use wands on myself.
Current group uses hero points. mostly I save them to re-roll will saves or fort saves if a death effect.
A fighter gives a little more priority to improving his cloak of resistance than my casters.
Freekin ask the buff caster to prioritize save buffs. Another 2 points of damage is not nearly as important as me not turning around and stabbing you.

Associate topic of how big of a problem is it?
It totally depends upon the GM, group, and campaign.

Last year we ran Carrion Crown with the GM making lots of modifications to make things tougher.
I don't know if it was as originally written or how he modified things, but will saves seemed almost constant. When you roll a dozen will saves (many high DC) every games session, you will fail enough to notice.
By the end almost every single PC had taken iron will (even the paladin). Several had improved iron will.

Also some GM's will in-character target intelligently. You look like a fighter-ish type of person so the bad guy is going to hit you with a will save spell. You look like a wizard-ish type of person, your going to swallow a bunch of reflex saves. And you look like a rogue-ish guy so you will have to try to stand up through a mess of fortitude saves.

Some groups aren't big on buffs and preparation some are. One group has all the characters are independently making sure they have good saves. Another group has a dedicated buff caster that makes sure everyone has decent defenses.


ElterAgo wrote:

Totally thought this was something different from the title.

But for the actual topic:
Yes, a fighter will want his belt for physical stats. But I have also been known to purchase a headband for wisdom.
Fighters have lots of feats. Taking iron will or improved iron will is not too onerous.
Ion stone for protection from evil or I buy a wand of it to give to the caster.
Take some ranks in UMD so I can use wands on myself.
Current group uses hero points. mostly I save them to re-roll will saves or fort saves if a death effect.
A fighter gives a little more priority to improving his cloak of resistance than my casters.
Freekin ask the buff caster to prioritize save buffs. Another 2 points of damage is not nearly as important as me not turning around and stabbing you.

Associate topic of how big of a problem is it?
It totally depends upon the GM, group, and campaign.

Last year we ran Carrion Crown with the GM making lots of modifications to make things tougher.
I don't know if it was as originally written or how he modified things, but will saves seemed almost constant. When you roll a dozen will saves (many high DC) every games session, you will fail enough to notice.
By the end almost every single PC had taken iron will (even the paladin). Several had improved iron will.

Also some GM's will in-character target intelligently. You look like a fighter-ish type of person so the bad guy is going to hit you with a will save spell. You look like a wizard-ish type of person, your going to swallow a bunch of reflex saves. And you look like a rogue-ish guy so you will have to try to stand up through a mess of fortitude saves.

Some groups aren't big on buffs and preparation some are. One group has all the characters are independently making sure they have good saves. Another group has a dedicated buff caster that makes sure everyone has decent defenses.

Although admittedly some of those targets are a little odd because some of the save distributions are a little odd.

Who's going to guess that the dude who's honed his body to become the ultimate warrior has worse reflexes and a more easily-overpowered will than the musician standing next to him? Or that the agile dude with a rapier is more vulnerable to poison than the frigging priest behind him is?

Sovereign Court

Going to weigh in with my incredibly low-Will save character here. Kyobi is a monstrous martial multiclass to support all his feat and skill prerequisites to become a Pain Taster, meaning he has almost no Will progression from classes; and a somewhat dumped WIS as well.

With Sacred Tattoo his Will save rises +2; if he has time to Bloodrage then it becomes +4. Not really enough to succeed on any spell he's facing as a level 7-8 character.

So, excepting natural 20s, I've failed every Will save forced upon him in PFS play. However it has only been a problem exactly once, for one turn (when the Shaman player was physically too far removed to Break Enchantment until the following round).

Kyobi compensates for his abysmal Will save by being community-minded and handing out a library of scrolls to the casters in the party, designed to fix any possible malaise that may befall him or others without demanding spell slot expenditure.

As his initiative is +0 most of the time, he will usually be acting at the very end of the initiative order. This makes it extremely unlikely that he'll be able to murder the entire party from a failed Confusion, since it means there have to be no casters between the boss's initiative and the bottom of the count, while simultaneously meaning the boss has not been shut down in some way by the casters acting before him, and/or there has to be no terrain or tactical issues preventing him from full attacking... on a failed percentile roll. And it's easy to be immune to the other "kill your party" terror, charm/dominate, due to Protection from Evil.

Aside on lopsided saves:
Of course, consider that his Fortitude save is so astronomical that he can literally succeed on any level-appropriate Fortitude challenge on a 2+. I've seen a lot of Barbarians embarrassed when they say "I can't possibly fail this, why bother targeting me" against a Baleful Polymorph and then they become a very perturbed badger on a roll of 3. Maybe a hyper-optimized human Superstitious barbarian with the foresight to pick up the ability to rage as an immediate action and act while flat-footed could avoid this, but that's at least a little rare.

Also, having impossibly high base Fortitude qualifies for Heroic Defiance which is a pretty good "get out of jail free" card, considering how much can happen in a single round at higher levels.

So hey. Sometimes you get caught with your armored pants down and get a suggestion to go check if the oven's been left on, but most of the time in play it hasn't been that big a deal-- at least in PFS' level ranges.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

However the enemy spell casters tell me to.


Kyobi, the Jeweled Cutter wrote:
So, excepting natural 20s, I've failed every Will save forced upon him in PFS play. However it has only been a problem exactly once, for one turn (when the Shaman player was physically too far removed to Break Enchantment until the following round).

Break Enchantment has a 1 minute casting time so I suspect this situation should have caused you slightly more trouble.

I have failed an important will save once across my PFS PC's (who tend to be casters) and that resulted in my feebleminded sorcerer spending about an hour trying to beat an enemy spellcaster to death with his staff. It was mildly amusing for a little while but quickly became rather tedious.

Also Protection from Evil and the Clear Spindle only protect you from evil spellcasters and only from effects which exercise ongoing control. Confusion doesn't count. Many will saves are also nothing at all to do with spells and can leave you confused, stunned or running for your life as they are very often not tagged as mind affecting charms or compulsions.


andreww wrote:
Break Enchantment has a 1 minute casting time so I suspect this situation should have caused you slightly more trouble.

So it does! Fair enough. On the plus side, I could probably succeed on the Fortitude save vs. being coup de graced for at least a couple of rounds...

On beating paralysis:
Anyone have a more proactive solution for this that doesn't involve a friendly spellcaster to hand Remove Paralysis scrolls? A Ring of Freedom of Movement is somewhat out-of-scope on price range.

andreww wrote:
Also Protection from Evil and the Clear Spindle only protect you from evil spellcasters and only from effects which exercise ongoing control. Confusion doesn't count.

I'm aware, hence only mentioning charm/dominate as things obviated by Protection from Evil. I guess you could get embarrassed by a neutral bard suggesting that you tango?


@ the op: prepare to do what your told a lot?

Sovereign Court

Incidentally, it's a little hardcore, but if you're willing to forego one of your senses that doesn't REALLY matter all that much (... when you have -1 Perception and +0 initiative) a huge contingent of action-controlling spells can be avoided (i.e. anything that requires the target to hear the spell/ability).

Kyobi has Read Lips as a language-- from the clarification that in PFS Read Lips is available as a language choice so that Deaf oracles can function-- just incase the Venture Captain says to go clear out a harpy lair, and he has to drink that potion of Blindness/Deafness labeled "Hear No Evil" in his backpack.


Exguardi wrote:
Anyone have a more proactive solution for this that doesn't involve a friendly spellcaster to hand Remove Paralysis scrolls? A Ring of Freedom of Movement is somewhat out-of-scope on price range.

Well... Hold Person/Monster does allow a new save every turn, so there is that.

Sovereign Court

Lemmy wrote:
Well... Hold Person/Monster does allow a new save every turn, so there is that.

Not sure combat is usually relaxed enough for people to wait around for my die to land on "20" good sir.

Last time I was paralyzed by a Hold Person I literally forget to negate it for a round with Heroic Defiance. No one was more surprised than I by the immediate natural 20 on the following round.


Kyobi, the Jeweled Cutter wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Well... Hold Person/Monster does allow a new save every turn, so there is that.
Not sure combat is usually relaxed enough for people to wait around for my die to land on "20" good sir.

Probably isn't... But even with a 40% chance you shouldn't take more than 3 combats to be free...

But yeah... Once you failed the save it's over, because Paralysis is literally the inability to move, and basically everything you can do requires you to move in some way...

At higher levels, getting a ring of Freedom of Movement really helps (with a lot of things, not the least of them being Paralysis). Protection From Evil should help (I think forcing you to stand still falls under the "exercise control" category)...

Other than that... Uh... I don't know... Kill the enemy caster? :P


I wish more Will save effects allowed a new save every round. That obviously wouldn’t work well with Dominate, but I’d be very liberal with allowing new saves for that anyhow.

The clear spindle's effect in the wayfinder looks pretty great and is probably something my Dirty Fighter should aim to get before his Dirty Tricks get to the level where they could potentially cause a TPK. The fact he's Evil himself might make the Protection from Evil effect kind of weird, but honestly it is mostly other Evil folks who mess with his mind rather than Good ones.


Lemmy wrote:
Protection From Evil should help (I think forcing you to stand still falls under the "exercise control" category)...

I don't think it does.

"Protection from Evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as Command, Charm Person, and Dominate Person; it doesn't work on Sleep or Confusion."
Hold Person seems more like 'Sleep' than it is like 'Command'.

101 to 150 of 155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / How do you play bad will save characters? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.