On paper, the PCs and their enemies should be roughly equally matched at the start of a fight, anyway.
Um,... what? That's simply untrue. The party is expected to face a number of fights in succession, which of course means that they will be progressively weaker at each fight, while at the same time, the monsters are generally getting progressively more difficult. A major part of the game, therefore, is resource allocation -- do I use this 1/day power now, or save it for a later encounter when we might be in greater need of it?
And because you can't predict how much any particular encounter will cost you, there's a roughly 50/50 shot you'll wander into the boss monster with lower than expected resources, which puts you on the wrong side of a death spiral more or less from the start. (The alternative, of course, is to allow unlimited rests, including just before the boss fight, but this not only breaks verisimilitude, but also incentivizes the party to nova at each fight, and thus every fight needs to be balanced as a boss fight. The alternative is worse than the situation it ostensibly fixes.)
Our table uses "bad guy points" that a boss can use for just about anything, a boost to turn a failed attack into a hit, or to deflect an incoming attack, or to turn a crit into a normal hit, or to help pass a save, or to reroll an important roll, etc. Afaik, everyone likes it. An important boss fight ending in 30 seconds is not only anticlimatic, but also not very fun for anyone if it happens frequently. People like participating in important battles, if one guy has the means to one-shot bosses 20% of the time, it'll get old quick.
But the idea of only applying this to saves, though, sounds atrocious to me. "Only HP damage will win the day" is cheap for every non full BAB classes. At least with a single pool for everything, both the heavy damage dealer and the save-or-die-er are hacking at the same pool to get their chance at glory.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My answer to the OP: DON'T
If a player uses a spell that has a low chance of ending the battle and because of a dice roll, the player succeeds, let that player have their win. If I had any inkling that a GM was fudging things in this way, I don't think I would be in that GM's next campaign. A lucky roll ending a combat early isn't boring or anticlimactic, it's a big win. Whatever terrible thing the boss was trying to do has been stopped. That is where the main point is, not how long the battle took.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um,... what? That's simply untrue. The party is expected to face a number of fights in succession, which of course means that they will be progressively weaker at each fight, while at the same time, the monsters are generally getting progressively more difficult. A major part of the game, therefore, is resource allocation -- do I use this 1/day power now, or save it for a later encounter when we might be in greater need of it?
What I mean is that the identity of the antagonists in a given scenario is determined by choosing enemies that the party can conceivably defeat using less than all of their resources. You can send 10th level adventurers after an Adult Red Dragon; but you wouldn't send a 3rd level party or an 18th level party to fight one, as the former can't win and the latter would have no trouble.
The whole point of CR is to allow the GM to choose monsters that PCs can reliably beat, right?
GM: Hey Gark your up, what ya gonna do?
Gark: Twiddle my thumbs.
GM: Don't you wanna swing your big sword?
Gark: Well yes, but the wizard already went and... we won.
GM: But somebody has to actually kill the frozen evil dude.
Gark: I'm sure the rogue can handle it, I'm busy having fun twiddling.
GM: Come on Gark, there is no win or lose, just fun or no fun.
Rogue: Is that RAW or a home Rule?
GM: Merlin from now on you're only allowed to cast buffs and trap people in webs
Merlin: why?GM: Gark wants to kill all the things
Merlin: If we can both kill the thing wouldn't it be fair to leave it down to initiative roles?
GM: No from now on your only role is to enable to fun of other players.
Merlin: Isn't that what a GM is for?
GM: No I'm not worried about you having fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Geez what did Gark ever do to you guys? He's never acted like that to my knowledge.
The thing I hate about PF and 3.x's SoD is that they are completely independent, and completely invalidate, other classes' efforts.
If 3 martials spend 5 turns ganging up on the big bad guy, finally bring him down to very few HP, and then the wizard casts a SoD and gets lucky, he has just completely invalidated 15 turns' worth of actions. In other words, their dudes served no purpose, and could have just total Ded the whole time, and the party would have been better off. On the flip side, the party can wear down a dude to near-death, and he is *still* as resilient to the wizard's SoD. So as a martial, I never really wanted to spend any effort against a dude I knew the caster would attempt to SoD, and as a caster, I never really wanted to try any against a dude who had already been attack. It's really unfun. And what's perhaps more unfun is that DCs are uniquely dependent on casting stat and spell level. Spells like Destruction (which can kill you), Mass Inflict Serious Wounds (which deals crap damage, Repulsion (which does no harm and is really just a protection spell), and Blasphemy (or equivalent, which for a CR appropriate encounter is unlikely to do more than skip a turn), will all have the exact same DC. How is this fair? Destruction either does a ton of damage or, at worst, a lot of damage. Repulsion at best just keeps a foe away, at worst does nothing. For the same spell slot. Same DCs. One could argue that the spells' levels aren't appropriate, but a +/-1 dodges the issue. I've always felt it problematic that the difficulty of the same has no relation with the kind of effect it has (debuff, save or suck, save or die, etc.)
And this doesn't just apply to Save or Die. I've had the same feeling with anything that attacks anything else than HP, really. Sure, party coordination was rarely optimal, but still. I make a build focused on dishing out a ton of negative levels, and never get to kill anything with it (or stack enough on a single dude for it to really matter). Same applies with attacking ability scores. As a PC, I don't really expect to do much more than a two-handed martial from now on. The game really feels designed to make combat centered on hit points; why bother attacking anything else?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That gives me an idea-
What about giving bosses save bonuses that scale down as their HP is depleted? So it's easier to land a fight-winning SoD effect when they're down to half health.
This also gives the party a way out of the death spiral, because they can execute a "get the boss to half health and then win" even if "win instantly due to dice" is off the table.
If your "boss fight" is a 1v5, you're doing it wrong.
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.
You make some very good points, but have missed the salient facts.
(1) This isn't about Save or Suck, it's about Save or Die. To me, they are very different kettles of fish.
(2) Is the Fighter who has conserved resources to take on the BBEG happy that his moment to shine has been taken away from him because the Wizard go in a lucky spell? No. What about the Cleric who saved Buff and Heal spells to assist the Fighters against the BBEG? the Rogue who was positioning himself to make a significant contribution? Are you seriously trying to tell me that they are happy that their moment of glory has been taken away from them? That's not my experience.
(3) When was the last time the party talked about that epic fight where the BBEG was one-shotted by a lucky spell? It never happened because
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of the Wizard (or whatever) using Save-or-Suck spells if they want; if successful the Wizard (or whatever) has significantly contributed, had fun and (as you rightly pointed) out that is point of the game; yet they have not spoilt the fun of the fighter, ruined things for the Cleric or taken away the Rogues moment of glory. Save-or-Die are different things entirely.
If your "boss fight" is a 1v5, you're doing it wrong.
Perhaps, if you judge simply by the rules of the game. If you're going by the stories the game is based on, solo bosses are iconic, perhaps the most iconic of all fantasy battles.
If your "boss fight" is a 1v5, you're doing it wrong.Perhaps, if you judge simply by the rules of the game. If you're going by the stories the game is based on, solo bosses are iconic, perhaps the most iconic of all fantasy battles.
What stories have a handful of roughly equally capable heroes on one side, and a single, completely unsupported antagonist on the other?
That gives me an idea-
What about giving bosses save bonuses that scale down as their HP is depleted? So it's easier to land a fight-winning SoD effect when they're down to half health.
This also gives the party a way out of the death spiral, because they can execute a "get the boss to half health and then win" even if "win instantly due to dice" is off the table.
This sounds like a good idea to me. Part of the problem is that 'death due to HP loss' and 'death due to saves' are independent of each other. Melee types relegated to meat shields or cleanup are rarely happy with those roles IME.
What stories have a handful of roughly equally capable heroes on one side, and a single, completely unsupported antagonist on the other?If your "boss fight" is a 1v5, you're doing it wrong.Perhaps, if you judge simply by the rules of the game. If you're going by the stories the game is based on, solo bosses are iconic, perhaps the most iconic of all fantasy battles.You could fill a page of examples from CRPGs alone. Or how about superheroes? The Fantastic Four vs Dr Doom, the X-men vs Magneto, The Justice League vs Darkseid and I could go on.
And when it's Ultron vs the Avengers, chances are Ultron gets taken out by the Scarlet Witch unlimbering something akin to a save or die on him.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Short Answer: It depends on what game style the group wants, and most of all, what game style the GM wants (since they do the lion's share of the work).
Tastes will vary from table to table.
If you and your players want gritty, survival-by-the-skin-of-the-teeth combat, then save-or-die and save-or-suck spells are going to come out a lot and you need to not only be ready for them, but you need to adapt your approach to combat and gaming prep accordingly:
- If you have limited time to do prep, avoid lovingly crafting a single creature with the intent of it being dramatic. Get a number of reasonably nasty creatures and encounters ready, and see how things go.
- Improvise. If the PCs steamrolled through the first two encounters without using too many resources, or went back and rested before a big fight, don't be afraid to add in some henchmen, buff spells and/or summoned creatures.
- Everything at the PCs disposal is at yours too. Don't be afraid of throwing out save or suck spells. Quickened hideous laughter or hold person are good ways of potentially shutting down low Will save PCs without losing too heavily on action economy - the spell slots really only need to last 2-4 rounds.
- Hit the casters as hard and fast as possible. Don't be afraid to have minions in the room with ranged weapons and a readied action to shoot casters when they start casting - unless the PC takes precautions it can be very effective at shutting them down.
- Don't be afraid to put a symbol spell or two on the ceiling of the boss's room, which he is attuned to (and thus not affected by). symbol of dispelling can be particularly vicious, and symbol of exsanguination can help by applying continuous damage for the concentration checks. symbol of persuasion is handy for dividing the party. Symbol of weakness is great against low Strength wizards (it doesn't have a minimum of 1...)
- Silence is a 2nd level cleric spell. Nothing wrong with bad guys having priestly minions/advisors.
If your table's tastes lean away from gritty and brutal, then you might want to consider a different approach.
If your players are the kind who prefer a more lighthearted and popcorn-and-coke () approach to combat, and aren't generally too concerned about one-shotting the monster or not, then wear the odd SoD and talk to the wizard player away from the table about toning such spells back - don't prohibit him from using them, just ask him to avoid opening every fight with his most potent all-or-nothing SoS spell and add some variety to his spell casting.
If your players (like mine) prefer a more narrative - one could say "cinematic" - approach to combat (a lot of them are long-time Exalted players), then you need to take a bit more care in assembling your big boss fights, and I'd suggest the following:
- Monster creation guidelines are just that: Guidelines. Pay attention to what your PCs can do, and adjust accordingly. Avoid designing around the highest numbers in the party - e.g. If you have a defense-focused PC whose AC is twice as high as anyone else's... don't build a monster that can reliably hit him - design for the other PC's AC, but add in some other abilities that can present a challenge to AC-monkey.
- As a general rule; boss creatures should go for very high hp, expected-for-CR AC, higher-than-expected attack and saves, but moderate-to-low damage and save DCs.
- Add some "Hero" points for rerolls, especially if you're using the system with your players.
- Roll behind a GM screen and don't be afraid of fudging if the numbers on the die are something that would stop the fun. Like rolling five attack rolls and getting all nat 20's with battleaxes; TPKing a party due to ludicrous luck is less fun than a BBEG nat-1'ing and choking to death on a plum stone before the PCs enter the room.
- Avoid fudging where not necessary. So you haven't hit anyone in two rounds? No big deal. So you keep hitting people and their hp are falling faster than you expected? No big deal.
- Only you know the monster's hit points. If PC did something awesome, but didn't do quite enough damage to bring it to 0, no one will know or care that the monster originally had 3 more hp, only that Bob the Paladin did a flying leap from the castle walls and smote the dragon, then surfed it into the ground.
- Orc Ferocity, Die-Hard and similar abilities are good for a last-hurrah.
- If there's only one creature, the agile mythic template is a good patch to the action economy.
- Use the environment. Collapsing walls, crumbling bridges, spreading flames, flooding rivers etc, are all good ways to add complications to a boss fight that require PC attention and action. And if the players come up with clever ideas on how to use such things against the boss, all the better!
- Avoid loading him up on magic items. If you need more stats etc, apply the Advanced simple template rather than decking him up in headbands and belts - a challenge doesn't also need to be a monty haul.
That's my 2c anyway :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great Post Raynulf
Note on the Death Spiral: A system where the party could theoretically lose the fight is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact being on the loosing side is quite an attention getter and gets the players involved. The Death Spiral as you call it only occurs when the players and monsters continue doing exactly what they have been. Until they drop they have the ability to turn things around by design or by luck. Save or suck is not even close to the only thing that can do this. Small list off the top of my head: Teleport Out, Apply Debuff, Apply Buff, Use Terrain Tactically, Force Less Efficient Action Use or Tactics
Giving Bosses Rerolls and Similar Things: Dms don't do this without telling the players about it upfront at the start of the campaign
Save or Die with Boss RR enabled: Not useless. In fact its the only thing that can force rerolls making sure other effects hit. IE: boss has 3 re rolls. You force out 1 on the first round of combat. A smart boss creature would know you probably have at least 1 more save or die. Therefore it effectively only has 1 reroll to spend against the remainder of the party
Spellcaster Options
Buff- most efficent but not fun. As a primary caster player the only buff anyone has ever expected of me was haste. In response I usually ask them to give the familiar a wand of haste. I don't think I would mix very well with a group that attempted to dictate my action economy :)
Blast- basically the same action that fighters do. Not anything like Save or Die unless a martial standing next to them is a move or die
Debuff- that thing that muggles have to spend a ton of resources to build to use but still ends up worse without any investment
Utility- anything from communication to teleportation to stats removal
Save or Die- still viable with rerolls as shown by fairly easy math
Battlefield Control
Now Compare that to Noncaster Options
Buff- aid another?
Hit it till it dies- most common
Debuff- requires alot of investment
Utility- no
Save or Die- does anyone play assassin?
Battlefield Control- only if they are afraid of a single attack roll
Spellcasters legitimately have a viciously enforced copyright on choosing what to do in combat. Seriously saying they have so few options is a terrible argument for ANYTHING
I tend to agree with Raynulf in so much as talking to your group is usually the solution to these sorts of problems. From a house rule perspective I think Cabbage might have a good idea.
|
I'm not really convinced about the death spiral Orfamay brings up. On the one hand, I'm not convinced it's inevitable, and on the other hand I'm not convinced it's bad.
I don't think it's inevitable because in a fight where you and the enemy both try to pile nasty effects on each other, there's also opportunities to cure some of those. Some of the happier moments in PFS have been when a group of players hears just what they failed a save again, and then the cleric says "don't worry, I can fix that" - we don't have a lot of cleric PCs in our local meta so people tend to be surprised. But when you see the kind of status ailments thrown around on higher tiers, healing clerics start to look a lot more interesting and diverse than mere HP healbots.
So I see this "death spiral" as more a "swimming against the current" thing. A back-and-forth where boss and PCs test each other to see who's got the best answers and counters, and who has the trickiest powers to cope with.
And on the other hand, if you do lose several times in a row in a "save or suck" death spiral, you're going down faster and faster because you have more and more complications to deal with. So while it's not a single save or die, if you don't deal with the debuffs, it's not going to be a long grind it's going to go faster and faster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see a lot of people saying that ending fights by raw damage is boring and then people arguing that ending fights with SoS is.
I aggree and disaggree with both.
To me, what is boring is the lack of variety. If all the encounters are solved the same way it gets predictable, and predictabilty leads to boredom.
I thing that a GM has to set up encounters that should be solved in different ways to please different kind of players/characters so all players can enjoy themselves.
SoS and HP attrition go hand in hand almost all of the time. SoD doesn't really pair up with anything at all. Doesn't pair with HP attrition because it completely invalidates it (unless that creature was given an arbitrary +300 HP without any modifications to HD and Con that would boost its saves, for spells like Destruction). It doesn't even stack with SoS, because even if a spell like Bestow Curse could theoretically make a target softer for the actual SoD spell, the DC for that initial softener was equal or, likely, lower than the one for your SoD, meaning you could have saved a turn and a slot to just start with the SoD to begin with.
I'm not really convinced about the death spiral Orfamay brings up. On the one hand, I'm not convinced it's inevitable, and on the other hand I'm not convinced it's bad.
I don't think it's inevitable because in a fight where you and the enemy both try to pile nasty effects on each other, there's also opportunities to cure some of those. Some of the happier moments in PFS have been when a group of players hears just what they failed a save again, and then the cleric says "don't worry, I can fix that" - we don't have a lot of cleric PCs in our local meta so people tend to be surprised. But when you see the kind of status ailments thrown around on higher tiers, healing clerics start to look a lot more interesting and diverse than mere HP healbots.
So I see this "death spiral" as more a "swimming against the current" thing. A back-and-forth where boss and PCs test each other to see who's got the best answers and counters, and who has the trickiest powers to cope with.
And on the other hand, if you do lose several times in a row in a "save or suck" death spiral, you're going down faster and faster because you have more and more complications to deal with. So while it's not a single save or die, if you don't deal with the debuffs, it's not going to be a long grind it's going to go faster and faster.
As I understand it the death spiral isn't about just stacking up negative effects (I don't honestly know how you got that impression) it simply describes steadily loosing the fight.
Weather that is negative effects or damage it doesn't matter, the point of the scenario is you're loosing, if the cleric can just whip out a heal or a restoration then it isn't a death spiral its an effect you just removed.In a death spiral that cleric would be, running out of spells/needing to heal more than he could/needing to cure more than one person at a time without the ability to do so.
Also lots of groups don't even carry status removal and almost no clerics happen to prepare just the right niche removal for the situation it requires.
|
|
When I see death spirals mentioned in RPGs it's usually in the context of games like Vampire or Shadowrun where wounds also cause penalties to the wounded PC; so that once you get hit, it becomes that much harder to fight back. SoS making it easier to lay on other SoS would also be an example of that. "First I'll make your Shaken and Sickened and then I'm going to use your lower saving throws to make you Exhausted as well."
The thing about a death spiral is, it's going somewhere. If you don't get out of it on time (by either curing some of it, or stopping the enemy from inflicting more; likely by killing him), then you're going to die. Which is good, in the sense that we don't want combat to just grind on and on, it has to go to a conclusion somewhere.
So in a nice combat, the end doesn't come too suddenly for either, side, but they're both inflicting painful things on each other and it is heading for an end one way or the other.
Now it's true there's a lot of groups without status removal expertise, but I think that's partly because they (so far) haven't really needed it. At levels 1-5 a cleric is usually doing little more than HP healing so a wand makes his role largely redundant. At level 11 you need him to Heal/Break/Remove a Feeblemind, Blindness, Bestow Curse, Stone to Flesh or whatnot, and the role of healer becomes a lot more interesting. Because if you're in a bad part of a death spiral, he's the one who can get you out of it.
Basically, a no-SoD combat is two death spirals: the boss is in a death spiral and the party is. You need to hold out while pushing the boss along. The healer keeps you going for longer, the blaster/debuffer pushes the boss along.
When I see death spirals mentioned in RPGs it's usually in the context of games like Vampire or Shadowrun where wounds also cause penalties to the wounded PC; so that once you get hit, it becomes that much harder to fight back. SoS making it easier to lay on other SoS would also be an example of that. "First I'll make your Shaken and Sickened and then I'm going to use your lower saving throws to make you Exhausted as well."
There's also a death spiral involved in the party as a whole, which is especially relevant in "classic" 1v5 boss fights. When the ranger goes down (for whatever reason), the party has just lost 1/5 of its actions and roughly 1/5 of its combat potential. When the rogue goes down as well, the party is down to 60% capacity, et cetera. Of course, this doesn't apply to the boss, because a pit fiend is just as effective at 3hit points as at 300 (as was pointed out above).
The thing about a death spiral is, it's going somewhere. If you don't get out of it on time (by either curing some of it, or stopping the enemy from inflicting more; likely by killing him), then you're going to die. Which is good, in the sense that we don't want combat to just grind on and on, it has to go to a conclusion somewhere.[...]
Basically, a no-SoD combat is two death spirals: the boss is in a death spiral and the party is. You need to hold out while pushing the boss along. The healer keeps you going for longer, the blaster/debuffer pushes the boss along.
Or, alternatively, break the spiral (which is the game-theoretically appropriate tactical use of a high-variance tactic). If you're going to die anyway, then it doesn't matter much what actions you take -- the outcome will be the same irrespective of whether you hit the boss with a sword, hit the boss with a fireball, stand there, or play hopscotch. So in that sense, casting a spell that fizzles (for whatever reason) is literally no worse than simply standing there and whistling. But casting a spell that eliminates the boss as a threat ends the fight in your favor, so there's substantial fight.
Essentially, we have a matrix that looks like this:
ACT\OUT SUCCEED FAIL
SoD Spell Win Lose
Attrition Lose Lose
... and that's a capacity that needs to be present in a well-designed game.
Fifth edition gives boss monsters a limited number of saves they can choose to succeed on. It is way more meta gamey, but I don't see why single opponents shouldn't remain part of the game.
That is a bit too Deux ex Machina for my taste.
SoS and HP attrition go hand in hand almost all of the time. SoD doesn't really pair up with anything at all. Doesn't pair with HP attrition because it completely invalidates it (unless that creature was given an arbitrary +300 HP without any modifications to HD and Con that would boost its saves, for spells like Destruction). It doesn't even stack with SoS, because even if a spell like Bestow Curse could theoretically make a target softer for the actual SoD spell, the DC for that initial softener was equal or, likely, lower than the one for your SoD, meaning you could have saved a turn and a slot to just start with the SoD to begin with.
Except that usually you have more opportunities for the debuff effects (for example, it's a lower level spell). I can try to bestow curse[i] as many times as I have third level slots, while my sorcerer can only try to turn [i]flesh to stone as often as she has has sixth level slots. There are also usually more ways to reduce saving throws (even by a little) than there are save-or-death, they can be tried by more people, and they normally stack. (The fIghter intimidates, the witch uses evil eye, the cleric bestows a curse, the thief inflicts a Constitution poison, and THEN the target is petrified.)
(The fIghter intimidates, the witch uses evil eye, the cleric bestows a curse, the thief inflicts a Constitution poison, and THEN the target is petrified.)
PCs using poison? A Rogue that isn't too busy "positioning for a sneak attack" to actually do something? What game are you playing?
|
|
I think you're jumping rather quickly from "SoD is short-cutting boss battles" like the OP, to "we're all going to die, might as well try a Hail Mary SoD". The OP's problem is that SoDs really aren't such a long shot, they're the weapon of first recourse of his players it seems, because they work too well.
And yeah, sometimes there's a not-very-granular death spiral in the party as PCs keel over while the boss is going strong at 3HP.
But the problem here is exactly the all or nothing nature of health on single enemies. If a SoD either kills you or does something negligible, and HP damage either kills you or leaves you just as good to go, then the death spiral is indeed one-sided.
A different way of designing "deadly spells" is to have spells that do a lot of damage, but less on a successful one. The amount of damage isn't enough to kill on the first combat round, but after a few whacks from the barbarian that changes. Disintegrate, Mind Thrust, Explode Head, Boneshaker and Boneshatter and even the classic Fireball all fit this niche. I think they still offer the exciting possibility of hitting unusually hard and causing a sudden exit stage left for the boss, but they're much more of a team effort.
I'm beginning to think this death spiral stuff might be muddying the waters here.
Basically this debate boils down to
In the House rules section
People saying don't use save or suck spells, they ruin the game for everyone else at the table.
Other people replying certain classes, (particularly witches) don't have that many other options besides buffing. Which can be just as boring.
Some people suggesting making SoS/SoD spells impossibly hard to land, which basically equates to banning them.
Further people are suggesting various versions of 5e's legendary resistances, which has its strengths but is very metagamish and encourages said metagmishness.
Another suggestion that has been made is that SoS/SoD spells that strip away a layer of defense on the first success and another on the second, similar to the 5e solution but more impactful
Running the game solutions
Actually you don't need any new rules you just need better designed encounters, multiple opponents, or even opponents who carry status removal to help their boss.
To which people reply, that this creates a lot of work for the DM, which is true, but arguably so does implementing some house rules.
The other counter argument is that having allies isn't very cinematic. Which is true, in so much as most cinematic villains are morons who never have allies or prepare well for fights.
Finally we have the argument of this should all depend on your group and talking to your players (I tend to agree).
Now this thread concerns a brand new group, with a brand new GM, that started with a one-shot at level 10 (which was never going to go smoothly in my opinion).
With that in mind making a comprehensive list of house rules after one session seems incredibly premature. So I would suggest talking to the players and really considering trying to adapt encounters a little. Oh and try starting off at a lower level, you're going to run into problems in the beginning making the PCs super heroes from the get go is only gonna make that worse.
|
|
That's a pretty good summary. I just wanna chime in on a certain lurking preference I think I notice there for the "talk to people" line. I do think it's good to talk to people, but I wouldn't want to ask people to drop "deadly" spells altogether. But perhaps a move from all-or-nothing SoD to "lots of damage save for less" spells that have more party synergy can still make everyone happy.
I know I'm enjoying my Asmodean priest with Murderous Command and Boneshaker.
Taking out villains with single high-level spells? Just another issue that can easily be fixed by switching to E6. Cheers!
It's not like fighters and barbarians can't one round opponents in E6.
A long time ago I wrote a boss template
Depending on the number of players facing the boss, it gets a number of additional hit points and action points, which it can spend to perform additional actions or shrug off conditions (the pool is quite large, but it can only use 2 per round, with the exception of a few uses that don't count against the max per round)
At the bottom the thread, Stompy Rex posted a formatted version of my writeup that makes the template more easy to read. He just made one mistake, that being that the ability to shrug off an ongoing effect should not be an additional save, but an automatic removel of the effect.
|
|
I do like "boss template" sort of things. The final boss of Book 2 of Iron Gods has something like it and it did its job quite well. But I do think there needs to be some kind of IC explanation why this particular creature follows different rules. In Iron Gods that's because it's an Iron God you're fighting, but I'd be a bit surprised if a random tyrannical baron suddenly did stuff like that.
Not saying don't use boss templates, but put effort into lampshading it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a pretty good summary. I just wanna chime in on a certain lurking preference I think I notice there for the "talk to people" line. I do think it's good to talk to people, but I wouldn't want to ask people to drop "deadly" spells altogether. But perhaps a move from all-or-nothing SoD to "lots of damage save for less" spells that have more party synergy can still make everyone happy.
I know I'm enjoying my Asmodean priest with Murderous Command and Boneshaker.
Oh I should clarify by talk to people I do not mean ask them not to use SoS but rather to be sensitive in their use of such abilities and also to just talk as a group about the type of tactics the group will use.
Just popping back in to see that the discussion has progressed significantly since my last post (wherein I lauded my DM's houserule buffing PC and boss saves vs. 'terminal effects').
While I guess I appreciate many of the counterarguments against this sort of houserule, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that limiting the effectiveness of save-or-die (SOD) spells is equivalent to limiting fun.
Instead, I think it has had the opposite effect for our group, insofar as it has likely benefitted the PCs more frequently than our enemies, while also deterring anticlimactic boss fights and contributing to an overall dynamic where the party members work collectively to defeat our enemies, via HP damage attacks, buffing, debuffing, and control spells. In that way, it also encourages more well-rounded characters and tactics, rather than hyper-specialization into one or two tactics that either effectively end the battle outright, or fail with no effect.
The other aspect that should be remembered is that the boost to saves under the houserule I mentioned applies only to terminal effects (ie. it does not apply to debuffs or most 'save-or-suck' spells), and only for bosses/mini-bosses. That means most spells remain unaffected in most cases, and SODs remain a valid tactic against the vast majority of opponents, and even against suitably debuffed bosses.
For us, the end result has been a campaign where we have had numerous memorable and exciting battles where all the party members have had a chance to contribute to our success. It has also allowed the DM to continue to run a well-known AP without necessarily needing to vastly overhaul the enemies and their tactics (to my knowledge at least) to implement the sort of SOD counters suggested elsewhere.
This is all simply based on my own experience and my own views of what is fun, of course, and I appreciate that experiences and opinions may differ. I did want OP to at least have the benefit of considering this sort of approach, however, as I don't think anticlimactic boss fights are all that fun for most people, players included.
Taking out villains with single high-level spells? Just another issue that can easily be fixed by switching to E6. Cheers!
Color Spray, Sleep, Deep Slumber, Hold Person, etc. are all spells available in E6.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Color Spray, Sleep, Deep Slumber, Hold Person, etc. are all spells available in E6.
That's why we use E0. Nobody has levels and you just roll opposed d20s to see who wins
Regarding "diminishing fun" this is a thing you can pretty much adjust on the fly (or with at least one downtime period to plan) isn't it? By the time the players encounter anybody who could conceivably be considered a "boss" you'll have some idea about what tactics the players are using, and since the "boss" is is the one in charge, they're probably better at reconnaissance and planning than everybody else in the organization.
So if the party features a stone to flesh specialist, by all means let him or her petrify anybody on their path to the boss. Preliminary encounters can be cakewalks anyway, since their primary mechanical purpose is to force the PCs to be at <100% strength when the big showdown happens.
But when they get to the one guy who is in charge, it's not unreasonable to realize that they've been finding statues that resemble their people all over and invested in an amulet of proof against petrification (maybe a few for their important lieutenants if we're at a point in the campaign where 4k gold isn't much.) That way the petrification specialist can still stagger the BBEG, can use use their petrification powers to help clear a path to the boss by petrifying their support, or using some other tactic in their toolbox (players generally plan to be able to do more than one thing in case their primary thing is ineffective somehow, and those who don't probably should.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, generally the petrification specialist isn't in this to stone mooks, he busts that out for the challenging encounters because it's a powerful spell he probably can't prepare more than a couple of times a day. Asking him to waste it on the goblins in room 1 so you don't have to worry about your boss rolling a 1 on his save is just as unreasonable as expecting the Paladin to blow all his Smites before you encounter any powerful enemies.
While I guess I appreciate many of the counterarguments against this sort of houserule, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that limiting the effectiveness of save-or-die (SOD) spells is equivalent to limiting fun.Instead, I think it has had the opposite effect for our group, insofar as it has likely benefitted the PCs more frequently than our enemies, while also deterring anticlimactic boss fights and contributing to an overall dynamic where the party members work collectively to defeat our enemies, via HP damage attacks, buffing, debuffing, and control spells. In that way, it also encourages more well-rounded characters and tactics, rather than hyper-specialization into one or two tactics that either effectively end the battle outright, or fail with no effect.
I can agree with most of what you're saying you make it quite clear that this is just your experience. I would like to query a contention you make here.
1) I would say it limits fun for certain classes, a wizard without save or sucks has a LOT more options than a witch without save or suck
2) you say also that it encourages well rounded builds, however I find this a bit odd, a pouncing barb build can be as hyper specialised as he likes under your rule and they will work just fine. A witch on the other hand without save or suck is reduced to buffing and battle field control. The Witch is basically just enabling other players to kill people but having very little ability to actually kill/incapacitate something yourself. This doesn't sound like a great deal of fun to me.
I do think that "giving bosses hero points for rerolls" is going to distort the game somewhat, since if players know that the bosses are sitting on a reroll or two, they're probably not going to rely on "save and nothing happens, fail and you die" effects, and indeed may not bother with them. Alternatively, they may hold back the big guns for when they estimate the boss is out of "villain points."
Which is precisely the combat-extending effect I'm looking for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Amulet of Proof against Petrification gave me an idea. How about whenever the Boss uses a "villain point" to reroll a failed save against a really bad effect they are staggered for some number of rounds (maybe 1) as a result? Staggered is a pretty nasty debuff, and "I spent a 6th level spell to stagger the boss for n rounds" is a better trade than "I spent a 6th level spell for nothing."
You could spin this via "unlike hero points, villain points are cursed with karmic repercussions for your bad actions" so when you reroll a hit to get a miss, you take some damage (just not as much), when you reroll a failed save you still suck for a bit anyway, etc.
I do think that "giving bosses hero points for rerolls" is going to distort the game somewhat, since if players know that the bosses are sitting on a reroll or two, they're probably not going to rely on "save and nothing happens, fail and you die" effects, and indeed may not bother with them. Alternatively, they may hold back the big guns for when they estimate the boss is out of "villain points."Which is precisely the combat-extending effect I'm looking for.
Where did this idea come from that a longer combat is desirable?
It's not fun to watch in movies (see: Star Wars prequels lightsaber duels).
It's not fun to play in games (yay, round 15, we've been fighting this guy for over an hour, wheeeeeeee...).
It's not fun to do in video games (Wow, this super secret boss is immune to all status conditions and has 50 million HP! How fun and interesting! Signed, No Final Fantasy player ever. If you still insist that's interesting, watch the entire fight and get back to me.).
It's not fun to read in books (thankfully I can't think of any major examples. Score 1 for novels.).
Long combats become boring. Excitement arises when things change rapidly. The current combat in Age of Worms has me anticipating every ext post because my character is within an inch of death due to the results in the last round. If I don't kill the monster that's about to eat me, I am going to die and arise as a suped up zombie (and lose my title as "Guy who's been through the most dangerous stuff without dying", and we can't have that).
If this were a 10 round combat the creature slowly whittled me down over the course of and I was doing similarly pitiful damage back, this would be a boring slog instead.
As-is the combat has gone 3 rounds with the party being disorganized and panicky, using every means available to stay alive (mostly on my end since I made the choice of drawing aggro from this monster to keep it off my friends That may have been a mistake). It will be over, one way or another, in this round of the next one. THAT is exciting.