Change the parameters?
To complete the unholy ritual and summon the dark god the BBEG has to die between midnight and the following dawn. The PCs have to capture the BBEG prior to midnight and keep them safe from their own evil minions for eight hours.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our table gives "bad guy points" to bosses. Basically the equivalent of hero points, they form a limited pool to make sure the bosses don't die to a single poor roll.
It's a pretty darn good solution imo. Doesn't feel like cheating because the players expect it, it's limited, and the players have their own. When I played a char focused on save or dies and save or sucks, I felt condident that with persitence I could overwhelm the bosses, instead of having to always expect bosses who would only fail saves on nat 1s (and then suspect the GM would cheat if not rolled in the open).
I have heard of a GM allowing characters to use hero points whenever they like.
The balance comes in the fact that for every hero point they use, the major NPCs get a villain point for the GM to use in climactic battles.
|
There are consumable items like the Bead of Newt Prevention that prevent the results of a single bad save.
You could give the boss something like a 'Necklace of Luck' that he can use 2-3x to guarantee a save, but each time he visibly loses one use of it. That incentivizes save-or-suck optimized PCs to keep throwing stuff at him instead of just going 'oops guess his saves are all +30, I'll get out my crossbow.'
It more incentivizes them to go "Okay so he has two more free saves and he'll be dead in 3 rounds anyway so I may as well save my SoD spells and use ones to buff or cast no save spells so we can loot that".
Our table gives "bad guy points" to bosses. Basically the equivalent of hero points, they form a limited pool to make sure the bosses don't die to a single poor roll.
It's a pretty darn good solution imo. Doesn't feel like cheating because the players expect it, it's limited, and the players have their own. When I played a char focused on save or dies and save or sucks, I felt condident that with persitence I could overwhelm the bosses, instead of having to always expect bosses who would only fail saves on nat 1s (and then suspect the GM would cheat if not rolled in the open).
I have heard of a GM allowing characters to use hero points whenever they like.
The balance comes in the fact that for every hero point they use, the major NPCs get a villain point for the GM to use in climactic battles.
This is brilliant.
There are consumable items like the Bead of Newt Prevention that prevent the results of a single bad save.
You could give the boss something like a 'Necklace of Luck' that he can use 2-3x to guarantee a save, but each time he visibly loses one use of it. That incentivizes save-or-suck optimized PCs to keep throwing stuff at him instead of just going 'oops guess his saves are all +30, I'll get out my crossbow.'
That's a thought. A more visible (& probably partially used) Ring of Delayed Doom could work. Not something to use on every boss but an option.
It might even make the steal combat maneuver worth doing (if it was in a more loosely held form than a ring, anyway.)
It more incentivizes them to go "Okay so he has two more free saves and he'll be dead in 3 rounds anyway so I may as well save my SoD spells and use ones to buff or cast no save spells so we can loot that".
A point used against a save is a point not used to deflect an attack. Or turn a miss into a hit. Doesn't just apply to saves so burning his points with SoDs is always beneficial.
I remember blinding the final boss of RotRl's second book (the really unfair version of that boss from early on). The GM was upset at first, but he still nearly TPK'd us anyways. Good time.
Once you start down the path of "fixing" the game that isn't broken, then you aren't playing pathfinder and this post should get moved to homebrew.
No True Scotsman: Pathfinder edition!
Sure it's disappointing that some boss failed the save and ended the encounter, but it's no different than a melee walking up to the boss and killing it.
So because another thing is also a problem the first problem suddenly isn't one anymore?
Once you start down the path of "fixing" the game that isn't broken
I dunno, I think in most games the climax of an entire campaign ending in five seconds because of a bit of randomness would be classified as some kind of broken.
then you aren't playing pathfinder and this post should get moved to homebrew.
That's an interesting position. So if the boss doesn't drop on the first round it isn't Pathfinder anymore?
What if it takes two rounds to kill the boss, is it still Pathfinder then? Three rounds?
How long does a combat need to last for it to cease being Pathfinder? I'm curious if you have a precise number.
It more incentivizes them to go "Okay so he has two more free saves and he'll be dead in 3 rounds anyway so I may as well save my SoD spells and use ones to buff or cast no save spells so we can loot that".A point used against a save is a point not used to deflect an attack. Or turn a miss into a hit. Doesn't just apply to saves so burning his points with SoDs is always beneficial.
What points?
Read the post I was replying to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
then you aren't playing pathfinder and this post should get moved to homebrew.That's an interesting position. So if the boss doesn't drop on the first round it isn't Pathfinder anymore?
What if it takes two rounds to kill the boss, is it still Pathfinder then? Three rounds?
How long does a combat need to last for it to cease being Pathfinder? I'm curious if you have a precise number.
quit twisting his words and being intentionally "dumb"
Pathfinder is a game, where if you build for it and the rolls work out you win against the BBEG in 1 action.If you are going to "fix" this aspect of the game then it's no longer pathfinder since pathfinder allows for such to happen.
So it's nothing about how long combats are, but the fact that a nat 1 against a SoD happens, even to BBEG.
|
|
I'm seeing a couple of broad ways to deal with this issue;
- Get players on board with not trying to build PCs that win boss battles in one round, either by SoD or massive damage spikes. Upside: no players being rudely surprised their abilities don't work as expected. Downside: you're removing parts of the game.
- If the boss keels over too quickly, he was not the real boss but a flunky/illusion/simulacrum.
- Bosses get hero points or free saves or something like it, that gives them several extra chances, but those eventually run out. If done so that even when the boss uses a second chance, the power negated still does something unpleasant to him, SoD casters don't feel entirely useless but do need to strategize when to fire their big cannon.
- All bosses using clever tactics to try to deplete player resources beforehand, use bodyguards, illusions and so forth to try to make it hard for players to fire their big cannon at them. Upside: a clever, even "realistic" game. Downside: a lot of plannning work for the GM, and players will still try to preserve resources and focus fire despite all the distractions, so it's not always going to work.
- Give the boss big bonuses on saves just because he's the boss. Easy, but not great for immersion or feelings of fairness.
- Banning some of the SoD abilities that irritate you most (Slumber, Dazing Spell).
I'm thinking it might not be the worst idea to pick several options from this menu and assemble your bag of tricks. Some bosses will have the "save points" ability, justified with some IC feature; others will go for the really smart tactics; others are just stupid tough; and sometimes you actually do use decoy bosses. And sometimes bosses are allowed to simply fail. Also, do ban whatever game options you really don't enjoy, because enjoyment is the end goal.
(I personally think Dazing Spell should not have been written the way it is, if at all. The Dazed condition made it into PF so late that a lot of monsters don't have defenses against it the way they do against stunning. And that this metamegic isn't mind-affecting bugs me.)
I'm seeing a couple of broad ways to deal with this issue;
- Get players on board with not trying to build PCs that win boss battles in one round, either by SoD or massive damage spikes. Upside: no players being rudely surprised their abilities don't work as expected. Downside: you're removing parts of the game.
- If the boss keels over too quickly, he was not the real boss but a flunky/illusion/simulacrum.
- Bosses get hero points or free saves or something like it, that gives them several extra chances, but those eventually run out. If done so that even when the boss uses a second chance, the power negated still does something unpleasant to him, SoD casters don't feel entirely useless but do need to strategize when to fire their big cannon.
- All bosses using clever tactics to try to deplete player resources beforehand, use bodyguards, illusions and so forth to try to make it hard for players to fire their big cannon at them. Upside: a clever, even "realistic" game. Downside: a lot of plannning work for the GM, and players will still try to preserve resources and focus fire despite all the distractions, so it's not always going to work.
- Give the boss big bonuses on saves just because he's the boss. Easy, but not great for immersion or feelings of fairness.
- Banning some of the SoD abilities that irritate you most (Slumber, Dazing Spell).
I'm thinking it might not be the worst idea to pick several options from this menu and assemble your bag of tricks. Some bosses will have the "save points" ability, justified with some IC feature; others will go for the really smart tactics; others are just stupid tough; and sometimes you actually do use decoy bosses. And sometimes bosses are allowed to simply fail. Also, do ban whatever game options you really don't enjoy, because enjoyment is the end goal.
(I personally think Dazing Spell should not have been written the way it is, if at all. The Dazed condition made it into PF so late that a lot of monsters don't...
If I may add my opinions to this summary.
1) I generally agree that talking to players is the best solution to these kinds of problems, perhaps I might suggest that simply asking them to be sensitive with these abilities and not to try a 50/50 coin flip on the boss of a final arc. of course this requires sensitive players.
2) This works once maybe twice after which point it will quickly become annoying (anyone who has read bleach or Naruto will know what I mean .-.)
3) I generally think this is a workable idea, particularly SoS that they choose to not fail doing some sort of limited effect, slumber staggering them, Disintegrate knocking out their NA
4) I generally think this should be the standard MO of all bosses aside from maybe colossally stupid massive creatures. As you say it requires quite a lot of work.
5) This is one way to start an arms race with players and alienate the ones with low system mastery.
6) Similarly a good way to alienate players especially if they're already playing said class when you ban one of its abilities they're using. It works better before players start making their PCs but if you keep doing this you'll quickly find that you have only very particular sorts of PC, HP crunching ones. I think a combination of options 1-4 are your best bet and maybe 6 sparingly and done sensitively.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you keep doing this you'll quickly find that you have only very particular sorts of PC, HP crunching ones.
This is the key point that far too many frustrated GMs are missing.
It's a fundamental law of economics; you get what you incentivize. If you reward the use of save-or-suck spells, people will use more of them. If you reward the use of hp attrition, people will evolve their tactics to do that. If only one tactic is successful, that tactic will become universal.
Normally, anything in the game has something like six attack surfaces -- hit points, attribute points, CMD, and three different saves. This means that player characters need to be prepared to defend any of those attack surfaces (which is why abilities like evasion are as useful as they are), but are also given a choice of attacking any of those surfaces.
Choosing which surface to attack, and making sure that your character has the capacity to attack as many surfaces as possible, is a key part of effective play and also keeps the game interesting, because combat has many different ways to happen.
When you as the GM simply shut down all of the attack surfaces except hit point attrition because "it's boring if combat only lasts one round," then characters will focus only on attacking hit points, and every fight will become a hit point grind.
Which is even more boring than seeing a clever and lucky player one-shot a boss from time to time.
Remember, the players that are building save-or-suck builds are doing so because, to them, save-or-suck builds are fun.
My suggestion is very simple. Do not stop your players from having fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you as the GM simply shut down all of the attack surfaces except hit point attrition because "it's boring if combat only lasts one round," then characters will focus only on attacking hit points, and every fight will become a hit point grind.
Nobody is suggesting that only hit point damage should be effective. Removing a few SoD/SoS games (which isn't what most are suggesting anyway) leaves thousands of spells and abilities that target something other than HP. Nearly all SoD/SoS rules are in the core rulebook. So the lion's share of Pathfinder simply doesn't have them.
Side note: there are a few more "surfaces": wisdom mod for intimidate/antagonize, opposed charisma checks for certain spells, SR, and some abilities always work so there is no surface needed to target. That's all I can think of
Which is even more boring than seeing a clever and lucky player one-shot a boss from time to time.
Picking dominate or slumber or phantasmal killer is not clever. I'm not saying it's a bad thing and it can certainly be smart, but it's not clever.
My suggestion is very simple. Do not stop your players from having fun.
This is not true. Nobody has suggested this. I and others suggested that while it may not be fun for the GM, if it works for your players, just go with it. I've GM'd for many years now. In that time, I've had a many miniboss/boss fights end in a single PC's turn, whether through a very broken martial build or very broken caster. My players initially were very polite, but they got upset and bored quickly. When I used tactics like those mentioned in this thread, everyone was happy.
Just because something is right for you and your players doesn't mean you can assume everyone else is the same. This thread is for those that have had problems with SoD/SoS and want Advice. That's all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody is suggesting that only hit point damage should be effective. Removing a few SoD/SoS games (which isn't what most are suggesting anyway) leaves thousands of spells and abilities that target something other than HP. Nearly all SoD/SoS rules are in the core rulebook. So the lion's share of Pathfinder simply doesn't have them.
Actually yeah some people are suggesting that(although you'll note Quest isn't saying that that is what people are suggesting, he simply is clarifying why it is a bad idea), not in so many words, but giving bosses +8 to all saves is basically the same thing. Banning save or suck will also add up to a similar thing, banning classes that don't specialize in HP damage is also the same thing and finally giving bosses arbitrary chances to ignore stuff your players do will equate to the same thing.
Now onto the thousands of spells, a huge quantity of spells are out of combat utility (most divination effects for instance).
not to mention certain lists being built for certain things, Spiritualists have necromancy lists which people sometimes advice against playing because of hang ups over the undead. The Witch list and most of it's class features lean heavily towards save or suck (and of course the ultra fun buffing.) Summoners like to flood the board with buffed summoned minions which a lot of people find annoying
Buffing effects are actually just a round about way of doing HP damage, except of course, the buffers, casters normally, are forbidden from from doing any damage themselves, because that wouldn't be fun. Or they can do Haste, and then 4D6 scorching ray as some sort of patronizing peace offering.
Any spell that targets a save with an effect worth having can be a save or suck with the right build and the ones with the effects not worth having aren't worth having.
Side note: there are a few more "surfaces": wisdom mod for intimidate/antagonize, opposed charisma checks for certain spells, SR, and some abilities always work so there is no surface needed to target. That's all I can think of
Care to explain how exactly a wisdom modifier isn't an attribute mod? SR is just a layer of defense against either saves targeting spells or rays targeting touch (which are quite often SoS).
Abilities that always work, either aren't worth using or will become 'boring' for the same reason this thread exists.
Picking dominate or slumber or phantasmal killer is not clever. I'm not saying it's a bad thing and it can certainly be smart, but it's not clever.
Well in that they didn't pick some trivial other ability it is, although I suppose they could have been really smart and buffed the martial, thats genius level tactics apparently and for the record Phantasmal killer is terrible.
This is not true. Nobody has suggested this. I and others suggested that while it may not be fun for the GM, if it works for your players, just go with it. I've GM'd for many years now. In that time, I've had a many miniboss/boss fights end in a single PC's turn, whether through a very broken martial build or very broken caster. My players initially were very polite, but they got upset and bored quickly. When I used tactics like those mentioned in this thread, everyone was happy.
which tactics? because there have been roughly 6 or 7 different tactics suggested aside from, let your players do what they want and all of them have had their own detractors.
Just because something is right for you and your players doesn't mean you can assume everyone else is the same. This thread is for those that have had problems with SoD/SoS and want Advice. That's all.
Actually no this thread is for a first time GM who started his party at level 10 in a one shot. Which as I'm sure you're aware was going to have a wealth of problems attached to it given that you have GM'd for many years now.
So how exactly it is a thread for people who have a problem with SoD/SoS spells, when they have only ever played one game is pretty warped.
Of course we could take the approach of telling him that such spells are bad and shouldn't be in the game as some people have done, or we could be slightly more helpful. Picking apart Quest's statement with nitpicks and false truths is definitly not fitting into the latter category.
His overriding point is correct, you tell players that SoS is bad and they will do HP damage.
Asa Dm i understand your pain. However as a player, nothing ruins your daymore then finding out your super cool thing didnt function because of DM caveat, so make sure to hide it well. Recently we ran BONEKEEP in PFS,
|
|
One thing that I've considered, but not tried yet, is having some ablative layer of defenses on boss monsters that need to be taken down before they will be suceptible to regular SoD/SoS effects. This serves approximately the same purpose as giving the boss a version of hero points or free saves, but makes it more of a narrative part of the battle.
For example, some sort of mind shielding crystal embedded in the big dumb (with not a great will save) beasts head that makes it immune to all mind affecting spells. Upon the first of said mind affecting spells failing, a knowledge check can reveal to the players what is going on, and with a slightly higher DC knowledge check it could be revealed that a specific SoS/SoD fortitude (or aother save that the creature would normally be very resistant to) save spell like disintegration (pick a level appropriate spell that your players like to use) can target this defense and bring it down (with no save since the creature isn't going to be affected by the spell directly). The ablative layer defense could even have multiple ways to bring it down if you are worried that your players may not have the exact right spell prepped or unused when the fight comes up.
As I have said, I haven't actually put this into practice yet. I'm not currently GMing and only one player in our group usually goes for those type of spells anyways (I guess we've been "trained" through years of our playstyle not to use SoS spells) but it was a Feeblemaind spell that essentially took out the final boss of Kingmaker when I ran it (after a long drawn out fight when the wizard was down to spells that he knew had very little chance of working and got lucky). It was Epic when it happened... but wouldn't have been if it had happened in round 1
My suggestion is very simple. Do not stop your players from having fun.
No, the thread is premised on the question "How do I deal with save or suck spells?".
The use of the plural players here seems a bit dubious too. I'm not quite sold on the idea that the party fighter is utterly enamored with the idea of the culminating fight of a campaign ending before it ever gets to his initiative count. Or anyone else in the party other than the caster, for that matter.
Going back up your post a bit to note:
When you as the GM simply shut down all of the attack surfaces except hit point attrition because "it's boring if combat only lasts one round,"
I get that you're a huge fan of Save or Die spells, but you don't need to strawman and hyperbolize to make your arguments. You describe six 'attack surfaces' earlier in your thread, so it makes it even sillier that you suddenly pretend they don't exist here. Or that there aren't a plethora of save granting spells that don't instantly win the game. Or dozens of utlity spells that help laterally accomplish these various goals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you as the GM simply shut down all of the attack surfaces except hit point attrition because "it's boring if combat only lasts one round," then characters will focus only on attacking hit points, and every fight will become a hit point grind.Nobody is suggesting that only hit point damage should be effective. Removing a few SoD/SoS games (which isn't what most are suggesting anyway) leaves thousands of spells and abilities that target something other than HP. Nearly all SoD/SoS rules are in the core rulebook. So the lion's share of Pathfinder simply doesn't have them.
Side note: there are a few more "surfaces": wisdom mod for intimidate/antagonize, opposed charisma checks for certain spells, SR, and some abilities always work so there is no surface needed to target. That's all I can think of
You're misunderstanding his "surface" concept. All of those things you mentioned are obstacles to attacking certain surfaces. SR and opposed checks just make it harder to attack what you're trying to attack.
And even if there is an ability that always works, it is attacking some one of the surfaces he mentioned.
Icy Prison attacks Reflex.
Suffocate attacks Fort.
Hold Person attacks Will.
Disintegrate attacks HP.
Poison attacks attributes.
Telekinesis attacks CMD.
The surface is what they AFFECT (or in the case of save or die/be taken out of the fight spells the only obstacle they need to overcome to function).
The thing with your suggestion is that debuffs (Intimidate, Slow, Enervate, etc.) and buffs (Haste, Heroism, Good Hope, etc.) do not attack any real surface on their own. They just soften up one or more of the primary surfaces to make it easier to attack.
If you have removed, banned, or otherwise mitigated save or die/suck spells, you have removed anything that properly attacks the Reflex/Fort/Will surfaces, immediately cutting the game options in half as far as "What will end the fight".
Combat Maneuvers (and the other rare things that target CMD), likewise, are never going to kill the target so it's more of a set-up for other abilities as well.
Attacking attributes is EXTREMELY difficult to make effective in this game, so it's rarely feasible barring enemies with a hilarious weak spot in a certain attribute (like a Great Wyrm's whopping 3 Dex). Otherwise it just acts as a minor debuff.
Leaving, without save or die spells, HP as the only avenue that will reliably take down an enemy. Everything else (attack and damage buffs, AC debuffs, extra attack buffs) just makes it easier to attack HP.
The surface is what they AFFECT (or in the case of save or die/be taken out of the fight spells the only obstacle they need to overcome to function).The thing with your suggestion is that debuffs (Intimidate, Slow, Enervate, etc.) and buffs (Haste, Heroism, Good Hope, etc.) do not attack any real surface on their own. They just soften up one or more of the primary surfaces to make it easier to attack.
If you have removed, banned, or otherwise mitigated save or die/suck spells, you have removed anything that properly attacks the Reflex/Fort/Will surfaces, immediately cutting the game options in half as far as "What will end the fight".
If that's your argument on attack surfaces then there's really no such thing as an ability that 'attacks' a save in the first place! With the exception of Phantasmal Killer, I suppose.
Because the vast majority of Pathfinder's SoD spells are really just exceptionally strong debuffs that make it very easy to destroy someone after they've been subjected to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get that you're a huge fan of Save or Die spells,
I am, yes.
but you don't need to strawman and hyperbolize to make your arguments.
You're right, I don't. Fortunately, I didn't. Not a word of the earlier post was hyperbole.
You describe six 'attack surfaces' earlier in your thread, so it makes it even sillier that you suddenly pretend they don't exist here. Or that there aren't a plethora of save granting spells that don't instantly win the game. Or dozens of utlity spells that help laterally accomplish these various goals.
"Save granting spell" is a meaningless category. No one ever died from failing a save against a glitterdust spell. Similarly, no one ever died from being tripped. (Sundankan had it right: "[W]ithout save or die spells, HP [is] the only avenue that will reliably take down an enemy. Everything else (attack and damage buffs, AC debuffs, extra attack buffs) just makes it easier to attack HP.")
What wins battles is damage against an attack surface (for example, forcing a save against a death spell, hit point attrition, or incapacitating amounts of poison). Even an unconscious opponent is not necessarily defeated, which is why the fighter often needs to be in a position to administer a coup de grace. Similarly, the "utility spells" rarely accomplish a goal by themselves; they usually enable others to accomplish the goals.
Absent save-or-die spells, there are very few ways to incapacitate a foe other than via hit point attrition (attribute damage is extremely difficult to pull off,and extremely expensive). Making the BBEG effectively immune to save-or-suck spells reduces the combat to a very dull exchange of full attacks between the martials -- or, even worse, reduces the combat to a series of attack actions from the martials, who are then blown away by the effective spells of the BBEG.
Asa Dm i understand your pain. However as a player, nothing ruins your daymore then finding out your super cool thing didnt function because of DM caveat, so make sure to hide it well. Recently we ran BONEKEEP in PFS,** spoiler omitted ** While slightly disappointing for the GM, Much cheering ensued and happiness was deftly had by all players at the table...
The information in the spoiler does make me wonder if giving the bosses rerolls will cause "damage" to be a more appealing strategy than it is currently. Sure, a boss could use "villain points" to reroll hits and hope for misses, but generally a dedicated "roll to hit" character is going to have pretty good accuracy on at least their first swing, and and generally more attacks after that.
I honestly wonder if that would be a step towards rectifying martial/caster disparity, since the Barbarian power attacking for 2d8+40 and getting 4 attacks plus pounce is going to be harder to stop with rerolls than the wizard who casts one spell, but if you fail your save you die.
"Save granting spell" is a meaningless category. No one ever died from failing a save against a glitterdust spell. Similarly, no one ever died from being tripped.
And yet glitterdust is one of the premiere save or suck spells. So I guess we don't care about those anymore? I mean hell the OP is talking about babble, which is an SoS spell and therefore doesn't count as attacking a save. So do you not have a problem with mitigating those anymore? Because they just contribute to the "problem" of hp damage.
That was the whole point of this thread, after all.
If that's your argument on attack surfaces then there's really no such thing as an ability that 'attacks' a save in the first place! With the exception of Phantasmal Killer, I suppose.
Because the vast majority of Pathfinder's SoD spells are really just exceptionally strong debuffs that make it very easy to destroy someone after they've been subjected to it.
Hm? No, that would be a Save or Suck. Things like the one in the OP or Hold Person. Save or Die is literally "Make your save or you die". Phantasmal Killer is one, Suffocate is another. Flesh to Stone is arguable. Things of that nature.
Save or Suck spells are generally encounter enders as well. There is no functional difference between the Paralyzed and Dead conditions besides a full round action from anyone in the party. The lesser SoS spells Daze or Stun, effectively taking them out of the fight, but only temporarily.
Debuffs would be stuff that lower attacks, saves, or some other attribute or derived attribute besides HP. They have zero ability to end the encounter on their own, only facilitating one of the above options. Where a Save or Suck spell might trivialize the fight, a debuff will not. Yes, these are different grades of the same thing in a sense but that gap is SO huge that they deserve their own category. A Wizard with a staff who prepares Hold Monster can potentially win an encounter by himself. A Wizard with nothing but debuffs cannot.
Point of the Thread: A new DM didn't like his boss being destroyed on round 1 by a single save or die spell due to a bad roll. He asked how we think he should handle similiar situations
Save or Die: an effect that you fail the save you are effectively out of combat
Surfaces Theory: everyone has a bunch of different defensive stats. Well made characters can attack more than one preferably to target the lowest number
Do note that nobody here wants their players to have a bad time or punish them for being creative. Some of us simply find that dropping a boss on round 1 is anti climatic. A variety of solutions have been offered to this problem as the original poster and many of us find it to be. I do not remember make Save or Die useless being one of them. Most campaigns run a variety of monsters and bosses each of them having their own weaknesses. IE oozes have good hp so save or die is more effective than hitting it till it dies. They have a poor reflex save so that would be the best save to target. It is this variety and distribution that helps balance out effects that target a particular surface much more. It is a given to most people who play one trick ponies that at some points their tactic will not be optimal or maybe not even work. Also note there are powerful spells and abilities that affect saving throws that are not save or die.
Still using legendary rules. Still have save or suck players. Still having fun
stuff...
I'm not going to reply to every point point. I will mainly say I don't think I got my points across properly to you which may be my fault. A lot of what you said just doesn't make sense with what I was trying to convey.
Care to explain how exactly a wisdom modifier isn't an attribute mod? SR is just a layer of defense against either saves targeting spells or rays targeting touch (which are quite often SoS).
Quest didn't say "attribute mod"; he said "attribute points". He meant doing ability damage/drain. What I mean by targeting Wisdom is that you can cause conditions on someone by directly make ability checks. Intimidate is the most obvious. A similar example is if your boss/miniboss is charmed (Runelords has one) or they are utilizing charmed creatures, you may make opposed charisma checks to end or nearly end the fight.
You're misunderstanding his "surface" concept. All of those things you mentioned are obstacles to attacking certain surfaces. SR and opposed checks just make it harder to attack what you're trying to attack.
Maybe I am. I mentioned SR because there are spells where the only defense against them is SR, and there are battlefield control spells that can be walked through harmlessly with SR. Not everything in combat is done for damage alone. Not all fights end with death.
And the argument about the thousands of other spells not being fun or useful doesn't work for me. The pervading thought on this forum, which perhaps you disagree with, is that casters have all the nice things. Your point (or to be precise, Quest's point) in this case is that if you do anything at all to only a handful of spells, suddenly the game isn't fun. Maybe I should clarify my syntax: SoD is obvious, but by save-or-suck, I'm talking about save-or-you-will-be-dead-with-basically-no-recourse. Lipstitch on a caster can be dealt with, for example, and even though it might cause their death, that just means they couldn't mitigate it.
you tell players that SoS is bad and they will do HP damage.
Incorrect. I have seen through hundreds of games personally and thousands of posts on this forum that show this is incorrect. Again, that may happen in your game, but that's not the case for everyone. I also pointed out that the problems in my game weren't even just SoS/SoD; they were simply playing a min-maxed HP damage dealer which can cause the same problem. My advice (and others) contains several ways to help mitigate that. Some want them out of the game, but I am not one of them. I just want every boss fight to last more than a round.
If you have removed, banned, or otherwise mitigated save or die/suck spells, you have removed anything that properly attacks the Reflex/Fort/Will surfaces, immediately cutting the game options in half as far as "What will end the fight".
That's just not true. But see my SoS definition above; maybe we aren't talking about the same things.
Combat Maneuvers (and the other rare things that target CMD), likewise, are never going to kill the target
Semantics. There are plenty of ways that combat maneuvers can take someone out of the fight or immediately end in their death.
Perhaps we should agree to disagree. I was merely trying to offer advice to those who have had similar problems to mine. I didn't know it would be met with hyperbole and bitterness, but that tends to be where this forum goes.
If a game where SoS/SoD spells are hard to use is not fun, or is boring, then I love boring games. Having witches dropping hexes, monks jumping around the fight stunning and disarming folks, barbarians charging in to do crushing amounts of damage, rogues sneaking to hit weak spots, wizards dropping black tentacles and summoning extraplanar creatures, bards making all those other actions more effective. I mean, that stuff IS THE GAME. SoS/SoD spells/effects represent very little of the rules and clearly cause problems to some.
I say if people want to be boring, you be as boring as you want to be because you're probably have a lot of fun doing it.
I'm trying to be as civil as I can. Dastis's post just now may do a better job ;)
Oh yeah a nice link about rerolls
5e terminology
Advantage= rolling 2d20 and using the higher. Equivalent of a good reroll. IE: Luck Blade
Disadvantage= rolling 2d20 and using the lower. Equivalent of a bad reroll. IE: Persistent Spell
I think my instinct as a GM in case the players are dissatisfied that an encounter intended to be climactic ends abruptly when someone important rolls badly in rocket tag, is to somehow reveal that the "boss" they thought was behind whatever malfeasance motivates the plot is not in fact the real power pulling the strings. So just extend the plot arc (or the campaign) by an additional "here's who you have to defeat to put an end to this badness".
I mean, even if you're running an AP, there's always a section about "continuing the adventure" section with a variety of plot hooks that tie into the campaign, so you can adapt one of those. It's not like beings like ancient dragons, liches, elder gods, dukes of hell, etc. don't scheme and can't be plausibly the power behind the throne.
It's not that you need to do this every time, but if your players are upset that they didn't get a satisfactory climax of their arc, you can always extend that arc until they're happy. If they're happy that they petrified the boss on the first round, let them feel clever and leave it at that.
Quest didn't say "attribute mod"; he said "attribute points". He meant doing ability damage/drain. What I mean by targeting Wisdom is that you can cause conditions on someone by directly make ability checks. Intimidate is the most obvious. A similar example is if your boss/miniboss is charmed (Runelords has one) or they are utilizing charmed creatures, you may make opposed charisma checks to end or nearly end the fight.
Doing ability damage, is damaging the attribute mod, so again well done on tedious nitpicking.
How is making a Diplomacy check to end a fight before it begins better than putting the opponent to sleep? I'd love to here your logic.
Maybe I am. I mentioned SR because there are spells where the only defense against them is SR, and there are battlefield control spells that can be walked through harmlessly with SR. Not everything in combat is done for damage alone. Not all fights end with death.
More often than not those spells just allow the fighter to run up and do some full attacks, so yeah full attack damage
Or they get stuck in a pit, which is again no different to them being asleep
And the argument about the thousands of other spells not being fun or useful doesn't work for me. The pervading thought on this forum, which perhaps you disagree with, is that casters have all the nice things. Your point (or to be precise, Quest's point) in this case is that if you do anything at all to only a handful of spells, suddenly the game isn't fun.
they do yeah, flight, and healing, and status removal and future sight and invisibility and controlling the forces of nature and ranged spells for damage and summons and making clones of yourself.
BUT having all the nice things does not mean all the nice things are combat relevant does it? nope, casters have 4 options in combat
buffing - which is boring and Hp damage and the preferred choice apparently
Blast - which is just SoS but harder to do
SoS/SoD - which is no fun bad person spells apparently
Battlefield control - which amounts to the same thing as buffing but less bull, setting up the martial to kill everything
so take away save or suck and you leave us with 3 types of HP damage two of which don't allow for the caster to do said damage them-self, and naturally therefore are the preferred choice as martial swinging swords is the epitome of fun.
Maybe I should clarify my syntax: SoD is obvious, but by save-or-suck, I'm talking about save-or-you-will-be-dead-with-basically-no-recourse. Lipstitch on a caster can be dealt with, for example, and even though it might cause their death, that just means they couldn't mitigate it
I don't think this is a particularly special or unique definition. Possibly you're thinking SoS is more powerful than it is, slumber by your definition is not a SoS there buddy just wakes them up.
Incorrect. I have seen through hundreds of games personally and thousands of posts on this forum that show this is incorrect. Again, that may happen in your game, but that's not the case for everyone. I also pointed out that the problems in my game weren't even just SoS/SoD; they were simply playing a min-maxed HP damage dealer which can cause the same problem. My advice (and others) contains several ways to help mitigate that. Some want them out of the game, but I am not one of them. I just want every boss fight to last more than a round.
Incorrect! proceeds not to offer an alternative argument simply says that its not the case.
Our contention is that without SoS you will do HP damage, Buffing and Battlefield control both amount to HP damage, you may not realize or accept this but it is the fact. Its just not the cast doing the damage. So what else do you think Casters are doing? besides, buffing, summoning, locking down enemies for the fighter? All of that is HP damage.Semantics. There are plenty of ways that combat maneuvers can take someone out of the fight or immediately end in their death.
1) casters won't be making those checks so try again
2) they take someone out of the fight by making them vulnerable to damage like a slumber hex, or making them suck due to sunder, making it a save or suck in practice, but apparently okay because a big meaty person did it as opposed to magic.Perhaps we should agree to disagree. I was merely trying to offer advice to those who have had similar problems to mine. I didn't know it would be met with hyperbole and bitterness, but that tends to be where this forum goes.
you were the one that initiated a debate with Quest, very interesting form of 'offering advice to those who have had similar problems' if you ask me.
If a game where SoS/SoD spells are hard to use is not fun, or is boring, then I love boring games. Having witches dropping hexes, monks jumping around the fight stunning and disarming folks, barbarians charging in to do crushing amounts of damage, rogues sneaking to hit weak spots, wizards dropping black tentacles and summoning extraplanar creatures, bards making all those other actions more effective. I mean, that stuff IS THE GAME. SoS/SoD spells/effects represent very little of the rules and clearly cause problems to some.
Just so long as their hexes enable someone else to kill the enemy rather than ... putting them to sleep so someone else can kill the enemy? I'm sorry what hexes should they be casting in your scenario? Evil eye is just the Witch having the same effect but with less impact, same for fortune and misfortune ... so what is she supposed to do with her hexes, just purposefully have less impact so the barb can do what she wanted to anyway?
Wizards dropping black tentacles why exactly? the barbarian has already pounced on a murdered the biggest enemy and the monk has shut down the second biggest, the wizard is just putting mooks in a holding pen whilst he waites for a martial to save him, with his sword, which is the fun version of slumber apparently, though I imagine if he'd dazed those mooks (same result) that would be cheep wrong fun.
Our contention is that without SoS you will do HP damage
Why is that a bad thing though?
Why is HP damage suddenly badwrongfun? When did Phantasmal Killer become the only 'good' spell in the game?
I legitimately can't wrap my head around this idea that a party of characters working together to take down a tough, tenacious enemy is 'boring', terrible, wrong and so on, but one person rolling one d20 and ending the campaign is somehow the epitome of good gameplay and fun for everyone (including the people who literally don't get to contribute to the fight at all because they never even got to take a turn).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
For someone with a heart in their name, you sure aren't very nice. You're just being belligerent for fun. I'm done with the trolling. Have a good one.
Why is that a bad thing though?
One you end up with super effective builds that do just that which is the same problem save or suck is perceived to be
Two certain classes are reduced to buffing and then watching their friends do cool things because all the tools the class has to deal with enemies directly are bad wrong fun
Why is HP damage suddenly badwrongfun? When did Phantasmal Killer become the only 'good' spell in the game?
It isn't so long as you don't force classes that can only achieve it through buffing their friends to do it.
And phantasmal killer is s+@~ just FYI
I legitimately can't wrap my head around this idea that a party of characters working together to take down a tough, tenacious enemy is 'boring', terrible, wrong and so on, but one person rolling one d20 and ending the campaign is somehow the epitome of good gameplay and fun for everyone (including the people who literally don't get to contribute to the fight at all because they never even got to take a turn).
Because the barbarian running up pouncing and mincing someone is having fun the witch who cast heroism possibly is quite bored, but they got shouted at for casting slumber for the barb to do basically the same thing anyway.
You note the people suggesting you don't ban or permanent gib SoS casters aren't opposed to making changes and have suggested some themselves they just are opposed to everything ignoring certain pcs entirely or having arbitrarily massive saves (my first post in the thread for instance). Oh no wait you haven't noted that...EDIT: also seeing my second post and the post it replies to for a decent summary of the suggestions made in the thread as a whole.
Our contention is that without SoS you will do HP damageWhy is that a bad thing though?
Because having only a single real option to end a fight is boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooring.
Every enemy just becomes an HP sponge. Enemies with high HP and DR but low saves that you are supposed to exploit just become things with high HP and DR you are forced to slowly whittle down to 0 in every single fight.
That's why Dragon Age: Inquisition mages suck diseased moose wang compared to their previous counterparts. In Origins you could lock somebody out of the fight with Crushing Prison until the minions were gone or turn them against their allies or paralyze crowds of enemies and let your NPCs mop up.
In Inquisition (DA2 still had some of those options, if less) you have four choices in combat:
1.) Deal fire damage.
2.) Deal ice damage.
3.) Deal electricity damage.
4.) Buff and put up Barriers.
It's mind numbing.
Much the same scenario happens here, though not as extreme.
In an ideal world the mage would have a setting in between "Trivialize" and "Just do HP damage" but that's not the case so as long as everyone is having fun with the former occasionally happening changing it will hurt more than it helps.
For someone with a heart in their name, you sure aren't very nice. You're just being belligerent for fun. I'm done with the trolling. Have a good one.
I won't apologize for being short with someone who started a debate over an issue I raised being expanded upon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anybody is being belligerant for fun here. Just different opinions.
|
|
I think the "attack surfaces" idea is an interesting contribution to the debate. I do believe having multiple surfaces to attack can make combat more interesting.
But I think there's a further difference. SoD spells attack -some surface- and force some all or nothing check to immediately end the encounter. It's not always nicely graduated. Either your spell ended the encounter or it did nothing.
HP damage can me more graduated - scratched, bloodied, really torn up, almost out of commission, dead - you can hit someone for HP damage and feel you're making progress even if your blow doesn't kill.
Maybe SoD spells are indeed iffy design - maybe it would be nice to still have multiple attack surfaces, but avoid all-or-nothing attacks. More "save for half" and less "hopeless or negates". And you could still design it so that there's the occasional critical hit where an enemy really does die all at once - it's fun if it happens rarely and makes for an actual surprise - but not as something you can really plan for.
I think the "attack surfaces" idea is an interesting contribution to the debate. I do believe having multiple surfaces to attack can make combat more interesting.
But I think there's a further difference. SoD spells attack -some surface- and force some all or nothing check to immediately end the encounter. It's not always nicely graduated. Either your spell ended the encounter or it did nothing.
HP damage can me more graduated - scratched, bloodied, really torn up, almost out of commission, dead - you can hit someone for HP damage and feel you're making progress even if your blow doesn't kill.
Maybe SoD spells are indeed iffy design - maybe it would be nice to still have multiple attack surfaces, but avoid all-or-nothing attacks. More "save for half" and less "hopeless or negates". And you could still design it so that there's the occasional critical hit where an enemy really does die all at once - it's fun if it happens rarely and makes for an actual surprise - but not as something you can really plan for.
It is typically better design if spells do something on a failed save, doesn't incentivise the crazy high DCs as much which in turn create a greater problem.
Equally it's worth baring in mind An enemy on 1 HP can do as much as one on 100
Maybe SoD spells are indeed iffy design - maybe it would be nice to still have multiple attack surfaces, but avoid all-or-nothing attacks. More "save for half" and less "hopeless or negates". And you could still design it so that there's the occasional critical hit where an enemy really does die all at once - it's fun if it happens rarely and makes for an actual surprise - but not as something you can really plan for.
The problem with that argument is that without the capacity for overwhelming force the weaker force will almost inevitably end up in a death spiral of diminishing capacity, with no way to break the spiral. That's simple math. If your expected attrition of me is greater than my expected attrition of you, you will almost certainly win, and the longer the combat lasts, the more confident we can be both be of that outcome.
(You can confirm that yourself if you know a little bit about combinatorics. Assume you have a 55% chance of winning any individual round, and then calculate the chances that you will win a single round, a best of three, a best of eleven, and a best of twenty-one series. You will find that my best chance of winning is a single bout [45%], and that it quickly drops -- 42% for best of three, 36% for best of eleven, and so forth.)
A save-or-lose spell is a high-variance attack that either does no damage or infinite damage, but is therefore one of the few tactics available to a weaker opponent.
I feel like you could still have high-variance attacks that do less than infinite damage and are nonetheless viable. Something was "Save or lose 75% of your current HP" would still be a useful tactic, but wouldn't end fights by itself.
I feel like you could still have high-variance attacks that do less than infinite damage and are nonetheless viable. Something was "Save or lose 75% of your current HP" would still be a useful tactic, but wouldn't end fights by itself.
Right. But the party needs the capacity to end the fight right now or else it will get trapped in a death spiral. Because a dragon with only 25% of its hit points left is still 100% as dangerous as it was at the start of the fight.
There are spells that are save or lose quite a bit but not all -- harm is one of the classics. It's not very commonly used, though. The reason is that, quite simply, it's not a reliable fight-ender (in fact, it very pointedly will NOT end a fight) but it's sufficiently powerful that it takes a very high level spell slot. If you're in a position where you need to do that much damage, you're probably in a position where you actually need to do slightly more damage than harm does.
Or to put it another way, I'd rather have a 10% chance of jumping 100% of the distance across a canyon than a 100% chance of jumping 90% of the way across, because 90% of the distance is still 100% of the failure.
Yeah, but combat is rarely that binary which makes that example a bit iffy.
Yeah, but combat is rarely that binary which makes that example a bit iffy.
Not really. We're talking about game design issues; the question is not how often a tactic is used (that's a gameplay issue), but whether to provide a capacity at all. The capacity in this case is the capacity to escape a slow, painful, and dreadfully un-fun death spiral. The decision to provide that capacity should be a no-brainer; once you've identified something that makes the game not fun, you are almost forced to remedy it.
The only thing more stupid than a refusal to remedy a known problem like this is the deliberate decision to remove the remedy.
How about as a solution to "players are trapped in a slow, painful, and dreadfully un-fun death spiral" simply give players the option to escape, not by "winning with an instant-win technique" but just by escaping?
Like 13A has a rule where the players can automatically flee from any combat, provided everybody in the party agrees to do so, and penalizes the players for doing so by giving the GM the option to give the players a narrative setback (as the antagonists accomplish something because the PCs withdrew and were unable to thwart these schemes.)
So then the game becomes an issue of "avoiding that situation where your defeat is inevitable, because in that case you will withdraw, and try to come back later after you recuperate" rather than one of "We are in an otherwise unwinnable situation, I sure hope that Stone-to-Flesh lands." On paper, the PCs and their enemies should be roughly equally matched at the start of a fight, anyway.