| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is an untrue statement, and you know it. No one is trying to keep their players from having fun.
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.
Fair points. I don't personally find buffing or debuffing characters to be boring, but I can definitely see why some people might, and their ability for direct agency (ie doing things themselves) is more limited.
I can also see why you wouldn't want to choose to play a Witch with our houserule, but at least we were aware of it at the outset and could make character choices accordingly. Overall, I think the result has been really good for us (and if I'm being entirely candid, I'm kinda happy we don't have a Slumber and/or SOD-focused witch as part of our team, as I've found their tactics tend not to be a lot of fun for other party members).
As far as the 'Pouncing Barbarian' goes, the reality is that any super-optimized character can be a problem for a game, and a Pouncing Barbarian could definitely fit that mold. In some ways, that's sort of a whole other debate for me, but it's certainly another common issue I've encountered. I don't have an easy answer for that one, and as a player I simply strive for a level of 'optimization balance' within the groups I play in by raising the issue with everyone and asking other players to try to ensure they don't go overboard and overshadow other, less optimized characters. (I take the view that anyone capable of high levels of optimization should be equally capable of making an effective character who doesn't overshadow his or her allies.)
I guess for me it's always about trying to find the right balance where everyone gets to have fun, including players and DM. Unfortunately, that can sometimes involve reining in certain things for the sake of the collective good, even if that reduces the fun for one of the participants. Hopefully by communicating about this issues upfront (as my DM did) any major feelings of frustration can be avoided.
Happy gaming, and thanks for the respectful and well-considered response!
We just played a 5e scenario this weekend where the party went against a boss monster that had 2x Legendary Saves available. I knew the casters had limited resources available to them (it had been a long slog up to this point) but I specifically didn't want to know what they had available. The cleric twice uses his attack cantrip against the boss and she fails her saves both times. I didn't have her use her legendary save as I was waiting for something more sinister from the wizard. It never came. The boss went down still having her 2 legendary saves available! The players never even knew. *grin*
I personally like the 5e mechanic.
1) As others have said, I rarely have a Boss all by himself. It just doesn't usually make sense to me. As well as being mechanically problematic.
To be sufficiently challenging, a single boss usually has to be quite a bit higher level than the party. Then if they don't take him down quick, the party is often likely to be wiped out because of abilities they can not yet counter of peak damage that just isn't survivable.
2) We use the Hero Points optional rules system. Major NPC's have 1 or 2 hero points. Boss will probably have 3 hero points. The party knows this and must plan for it.
Fair points. I don't personally find buffing or debuffing characters to be boring, but I can definitely see why some people might, and their ability for direct agency (ie doing things themselves) is more limited.
I think there is a line, being capable of laying down a buff is fine, being limited to laying down a great many buffs, not so much. I tend to favor Haste/Heroism/Blessing of Fervor as the best blanket buffs lay one of these down at the start and then do something else would be my MO as a Witch/Wiz/Cleric whatever.
I can also see why you wouldn't want to choose to play a Witch with our houserule, but at least we were aware of it at the outset and could make character choices accordingly. Overall, I think the result has been really good for us (and if I'm being entirely candid, I'm kinda happy we don't have a Slumber and/or SOD-focused witch as part of our team, as I've found their tactics tend not to be a lot of fun for other party members).
it is very important that rulings such as these are made before the game starts as it would inform class decision.
As far as the 'Pouncing Barbarian' goes, the reality is that any super-optimized character can be a problem for a game, and a Pouncing Barbarian could definitely fit that mold. In some ways, that's sort of a whole other debate for me, but it's certainly another common issue I've encountered. I don't have an easy answer for that one, and as a player I simply strive for a level of 'optimization balance' within the groups I play in by raising the issue with everyone and asking other players to try to ensure they don't go overboard and overshadow other, less optimized characters. (I take the view that anyone capable of high levels of optimization should be equally capable of making an effective character who doesn't overshadow his or her allies.)
My contention is that a straight damage dealing character can be more problematic than a save or suck caster because most save or sucks have fairly common immunity. Immunity to mind effecting/sleep/negative levels/negative energy/death effects are all fairly commonly resisted.
I guess for me it's always about trying to find the right balance where everyone gets to have fun, including players and DM. Unfortunately, that can sometimes involve reining in certain things for the sake of the collective good, even if that reduces the fun for one of the participants. Hopefully by communicating about this issues upfront (as my DM did) any major feelings of frustration can be avoided.Happy gaming, and thanks for the respectful and well-considered response!
I follow a similar philosophy. Or optimizing heavily towards more fun out of combat things, like perform dance ;)
Taking out villains with single high-level spells? Just another issue that can easily be fixed by switching to E6. Cheers!
I'm running an E6 game with 10 point buy. After spending time to build a badass thrower (despite all the age penalties of being 101 years old), the level two fighter came in and landed a crit with his scythe. Over 70 damage. He had a little bit of str boost, but none of their gear is masterwork, let alone magic (they get a bonus feat and 4 skill points per level though).
Let's just say that the dude being higher level than them, and surrounded by like 5 clerics, did not stop him from dying on round 2 (could have been round 1 has the lucky rolls been earlier).
Stunned at first, this fight not intended to go on long enough for anyone to get killed on either side before they realize they aren't enemies and that it's all a big mistake, I decided to just let it happen. The fighter decided to make a scythe build. If I don't accept that he's going to do massive amounts of damage now and then, I'm just invalidating his character concept and build. In the future I'll probably use "bad guy points" as that player himself used when he GMed, but I'll make sure their use does not limit themselves to negating a single character.
That being said, all of this to say that, even at low levels, things can get swingy. Scythes aren't expensive and have huge crit multipliers and can (must) be used two-handed (more dmg from str and power attack).
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.
Sub bosses. Flesh to Stone targets fortitude. Spawn an annoying creature with incredibly high AC, but terrible fort saves, with annoying abilities (regeneration, AoE damage, long-lasting debuffs, etc.). Is the wizard *really* gonna save his Flesh to Stone for the boss, who likely has high fort saves anyways, while his party gets peppered away by this annoying little creature, or his he gonna spare them of all that resource drains and just instantly petrify it?
You know, though it's easy to have as a reflex "how do I negate this annoyingly powerful ability!?", it's often both easier and more fun to do the opposite and give good opportunities to let them shine. The wizard is happy he got to petrify a ton of things. The party is happy the wizard saved them a lot of harassment. And you are happy the boss doesn't have to face SoDs on round 1. Everyone wins.
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...
I just spent 4 hours yesterday watching the bossfight against Thordak on Critical Role. I didn't even participate in the game and I still had fun.
Yes a battle can drag after a couple of rounds, but generally my whole group enjoys fights that take about 3 or 4 rounds to complete. No one said anything about stretching it out over 15 rounds, this is about making it last more than 1 round, because the big bad tanked a save against petrify.
Just because fights that last more than a round are no fun for you, doesn't mean this applies to everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At our tables, most battles take from 3 to 10 rounds. Rarely more, and rarely less (unless it's a really shoddy random encounter). Feels like a good window to me.
I just spent 4 hours yesterday watching the bossfight against Thordak on Critical Role. I didn't even participate in the game and I still had fun.
I would argue that the fun of Critical role is for the most part in watching professional actors and in some cases comedians and their roleplay. Not the mechanics of what was a very very long fight.
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).
I actually like to make my bosses more dangerous the closer they get to death. Unless affects are reducing their effectiveness, their desperation is used to fuel more reckless acts that the party has to deal with.
so is round 2 really that much different from round 1?
Is having the fight decided after round 1 much different from the fight being over round 1?
so is round 2 really that much different from round 1?
Is having the fight decided after round 1 much different from the fight being over round 1?
I think so. Just because you have the "everybody got to do something" factor in a fight that lasts 2 rounds whereas if a fight ends on the first round it's conceivable that a lot of players didn't get to do anything.
It's better of Grak can hit the evil wizard forcing the evil wizard to devote attention to Grak, so that Merlin can kill the evil Wizard, than to have Merlin just kill the evil wizard while Grak stands there.
The two complaints about combat I've heard the most over 20+ years GMing are "man, that took too long" and "I didn't get to actually do anything." So running satisfying combat is about finding that middle ground between the two.
I think the argument is that by round two everyone has had an action, though I don't necessarily agree it's that important, or that SoS is the only thing that creates the problem
Defense is all about layers. There's really a lot of options out there to avoid death from a single bad save. Any character one bad roll from death was never very powerful in the first place.
Spell immunity, SR, spell reflection, ring of delayed doom, improved fort, ref, wil save feats, second chance trait, project image, invisibility, etherealness, Dream Journal of the Pallid Seer, astral projection, fortune hex, bit of luck, contingency heal, wish, and anything that grants immunity to X.
Some of these are very high level, but some of these come online at level 1 and none it requires dipping into hero points or DM fiat.
But what if the situation is like this.
R1
Wizard casts haste.
cleric casts righteous might and moves up.
Barb moves up and hit's a mook or moves up and readies or double moves, BBEG wasn't chargeable.
Rogue double moves to be able to move to flanking next round and hides.
BBEG casts mirror image.
R2
Wizard now casts SoD, BBEG fails and fights over.
Was that really a better fight than
R1
Wizard now casts SoD, BBEG fails and fights over.
Or even continuing first example:
R2
Wizard casts an empowered ray of enfeeblement and BBEG fails.
Cleric moves and attacks.
Barb now moves and attacks/pounces
Rogue moves into flanking and gets off a sneak attack.
BBEG full attacks and casts a spell, surprise he's a magus.
R3
Wizard now casts SoD, BBEG fails and fights over.
Like if SoD was bad R1, I don't see it getting better with later rounds. The others can still feel like they didn't matter since they didn't matter in ending the fight. They did nothing to help the wizard win the fight.
I also don't see this being better
wizard haste
Barb pounces and 100-0 the BBEG with his 4 attacks with a nodachi critting on a 15 or higher or scythe getting a nice x4 crit.
GJ team?... really just half the team.
Heck even
Ranger full attacks with arrows, wizard does scorching ray, cleric does divine fire, and X charges in and gets a nice hit can cause a BBEG to die before acting.
I've been saying the same thing referring to why its okay for Martial's to one-shot things as opposed to wizards. The range of answers is, that is bad too, neither are bad, its okay because its harder to do, simply ignoring that argument.
I would argue that the fun of Critical role is for the most part in watching professional actors and in some cases comedians and their roleplay. Not the mechanics of what was a very very long fight.I just spent 4 hours yesterday watching the bossfight against Thordak on Critical Role. I didn't even participate in the game and I still had fun.
You dont have to be a professional voice actor to make a battle engaging, but yeah if you're just pushing minis around and throwing dice, that is pretty boring.
Also the comment i adressed posited that a long fight is NEVER fun, in games, movies or anything else. Some of which include not only professional actors and/or comedians, but special effects and actual live action to boot.
|
Taking out villains with single high-level spells? Just another issue that can easily be fixed by switching to E6. Cheers!I'm running an E6 game with 10 point buy. After spending time to build a badass thrower (despite all the age penalties of being 101 years old), the level two fighter came in and landed a crit with his scythe. Over 70 damage.
Something like this happening and a high-level spellcaster killing a high-level villain with one spell are two very different situations. A lot had to happen just right for your story to take place: The fighter had to have a certain build, he had to score a critical hit with a low crit range weapon, and had to roll really well on damage.
Contrast that with a high-level game where a wizard can just cast a save-or-die spell and the villain gets one chance on 1d20 to survive.
All-in-all, E6 is much easier to manage, and it's much easier to give your villains survivability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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. <snip>
Gonna have to jump in right here.
Grind is boring. But:
- Long Combat does not equal Grindy; and
Short Combat does not equal Not-Grindy
It's all about the encounter design.
I've had a single fight against a single creature last over twenty rounds (it had 10,000 effective hp, and no, it wasn't a dragon), and had the players thank me for the most exciting combat they've seen in D&D.
I've been in a dungeon with two dozen encounters with (mostly) the same creatures, and even though the encounters only lasted one round, my god it was boring.
The key to both dungeon and boss-monster design is variety.
- In a dungeon, you make sure there are a variety of monsters with different and distinct abilities and tactics, to keep things from being repetitive.
- In a "boss monster" intended to put up a long fight, you also need to include a variety of distinct abilities which require different tactics on the part of the PCs.
One of the easiest mistakes to make is to try and make a "boss monster" that is a one-trick pony with mountains of hit points (which is one of the reasons I hate the 5E monster design, but that's another matter). Give it templates, give it funky consumable items, give it minions, give it anything to avoid repeating the same tactics every round, and then use them.
Disclaimer: The below is more suited to my "cinematic combat" style of play than the more gritty "fight for survival" style preferred by others. Adjust to taste.
Scenario: The PCs are fighting a goblinoid horde that has invaded their lands, lead by a clan of bugbears bearing deformities and strange runes carved into their flesh. As a major stepping stone in the adventure, they are facing off against the bugbear leader, Graggosh the Gorger (CR 8) of the goblinoid vanguard during the invasion of an outlying town.
Target Numbers: Graggosh the Gorger is a variant bugbear fighter 5 with the Demon-Possessed (babau) and advanced template, which hits the target CR 8 reasonably well. Given he's a boss creature we want his hp to be high (preferably well over 100), his AC to be on-par (21), his attack to be on the high end for the CR (+13 to +15), low damage (26 per round or less), high saves (+8 to +12) and lowish DCs (15-16)
Fiddling with the stats (lower strength and higher Con) and applying a lesser version of the Advanced template (no natural armor), masterworked scale mail, heavy shield and morningstar (plus javelins), and his only magic item being a cloak of resistance +1 and we're doing okay. Add in his 5 extra feats as Iron Will, Toughness, Quick Draw, Weapon Focus (morningstar), Vital Strike
What we end up with is something like this;
Graggosh the Gorger, CR 8
CE medium humanoid (chaotic, evil, goblin)
Init +6; Darkvision 60 ft.; scent; Perception +17
AC 22, touch 12, flat-footed 20 (+5 armor, +2 Dex, +3 natural, +2 shield)
hp 105 (3d8+5d10+64)
Fort +15; Ref +7; Will +7 (+1 vs fear)
Defensive abilities +4 on saves vs poison; Resist electricity 20; DR 10/cold iron or good
Weaknesses Spell Vulnerability (refer to template)
Speed 30 ft.
Melee masterwork morning star +14/+9 (1d8+5, +2d6 vs good)
Ranged javelin +9/+4 (1d6+4)
Special attacks Profane Attacks (included above)
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 7th)
3/Day - darkness, dispel magic
1/Day - summon (level 3, 1 babau at 40%)
Str 18; Dex 14; Con 24; Int 14; Wis 16; Cha 16
Base Atk +7; CMB +11; CMD 23
Feats Intimidating Prowess, Iron Will, Quick Draw, Skill Focus (Perception), Toughness, Vital Strike, Weapon Focus (morningstar)
Skills Intimidate +22, Perception +17, Stealth +15, plus others.
Languages Abyssal, Common, Goblin
SQ Possessed (See template)
Cool. So he's big, he's bad and he's tough. He also has a pile of different options.
- He can full attack at +14/+9 for ~10 damage a hit against neutral or evil PCs, or ~17 damage a hit against good aligned PCs.
- He can move and vital strike at +14 for ~14 damage against non-good, or ~21 damage against good aligned PCs.
- He can throw javelins at creatures with moderate success. Quick Draw keeps this viable in action economy.
- He can cast darkness three times a day as a SLA (thus, automatically silent and still), which might seem like a waste, but it is actually immensely powerful if fighting at night (as intended), as nonmagical light sources (torches, burning buildings etc) can't increase the light level and thus it creates a 20 ft. radius of total darkness that he can see through fine (as he has Darkvision).
- He can cast dispel magic three times a day as a SLA (thus, automatically silent and still). This is amazing as it lets him not only dispel any annoying buffs from the PCs (like align weapon, but he can use it even while paralyzed to remove SoS effects, should he fail a save against hold person.
- He can call in a CR6 babau with a 40% chance of success, for a duration of one hour. This is worth rolling for ahead of time if he's on the offensive (which the scenario intends), at which point the demon should have already faced the PCs and ground down their
But can we do better? Well, yes. While he has a lot of tricks, he's going to mostly default to hitting you with a stick. So what else can we do to spice things up?
- Give him a bandoleer of elemental flux (electricity), made with demon blood instead of Suli. Have him throw the whole thing (8 flasks) as a single splash-weapon attack for 8d6 electricity damage to the primary target and 8 points of splash damage. Not world shaking as a one-shot ability, but enough to be of concern. Also, if the PCs destroy the bandoleer ahead of time (Sunder or a nat 1 on a Reflex save vs AoE damage), it will explode with him as the target, though he has electricity resist 20.
- Give him a quasit minion who flits around invisible as a scout and aid-de-camp. In battle the quasit runs detect good or detect magic most of the time, will act immediately after the bugbear, wake him if he falls asleep, shove a single potion of cure moderate wounds into him if he is knocked down, or break invisibility briefly to use his AoE cause fear SLA.
- Give him some backup. Have him start with some minions, and call in more from the surrounding (burning) streets and alleyways after a few rounds. They don't need to be dangerous, just absorb enough damage to give him a few extra actions to show off his tricks. The more interesting and powerful the foe, the greater the victory for the PCs, after all.
Yes, variety is important.
Which is why everyone saying "Boost his saves so spells don't work and the PCs have to kill his HP" is just wrong to me.
But even then, an overly long battle can kill the tension. There's only so long you can feel a heightened sense of excitement or danger. After a while it simply becomes tiring.
At lower levels in a live game a long combat might not be as bad since you're hammering out every round in about a minute per player.
As higher levels and more complex tactics and longer round turnover come in (or in a PbP) you run the risk of your enemy over staying its welcome.
There might well be long combats that can be fun, but they're the exception that proves the rule.
I've been saying the same thing referring to why its okay for Martial's to one-shot things as opposed to wizards. The range of answers is, that is bad too, neither are bad, its okay because its harder to do, simply ignoring that argument.
Yes, but if you want your boss to live longer against martials, it is very easy to achieve. Martials are straight forward: They do hit point damage. Want something to last longer (i.e. more than one full attack) against them? Add more hit points or apply DR.
Monster hp is based on an assumed damage output of a party. If the assumption is too low (or too high), then adjust monster hp accordingly.
SoD and SoS spells are an all-or-nothing: you can't just stretch out the monster's combat life enough to let everyone get a go, because the effect either shut it down... or it didn't.
At lower levels in a live game a long combat might not be as bad since you're hammering out every round in about a minute per player.
As higher levels and more complex tactics and longer round turnover come in (or in a PbP) you run the risk of your enemy over staying its welcome.
On a related, but complete tangent... I miss the 2nd Edition initiative system.
Mainly for the simple premise of: Declare what you are doing within 6 seconds or lose your turn, then roll initiative, then do it.
But I've played with way too many players in 3.5/PF who insist on taking 10-15 minutes on their turn, each round, trying to figure out what is the best spell to cast right now, or where they should move, or having to ask what is what again, or... well.. you get the idea.
Even with quick decisions it can take a while to make all the rolls necessary to do anything. When you have 8 attacks per round with conditional re-rolls on some that miss and AoOs to take and Immediate action abilities to deflect attacks or do other things and 15 different buff spells to keep track of and enemies that retaliate when people hit them (Yo Monk do you want to keep punching that Ooze or stop after the first hit?) and GMs that refuse to streamline the game by telling you your target AC or SR so after every f$#!ing attack you're like "Did that hit?" so you know whether you can roll damage and then they complain when the rounds are too long and the tallying up all the abilities and running across an open field except "OH NO THERE ARE 20 DUDES WHO WERE INVISIBLE AND GET ATTACKS AS YOU RUN BY" and all the other BS that can occur...it can take a bit to resolve a round.
Spoiler because spoilers, but quite relevant.
The party opens the door to him, then realize they desperately need to heal before addressing this situation. The hill giant walks over, gives the signal (shooting the wall with his siege cannon arm), and gets his reinforcements. He buffs a bit, then readies to shoot any spellcasters, knowing that he's likely to do real damage if he connects. His cleric friend buffs and comes with her undead friends.
The party finally bursts in and the wizard attempts his typical schtick: shadow enchantment dominate person on the only humanoid they've seen so far (everything else has been turned into aberrations due to a disease common to the Mana Wastes, including the hill giant). The readied action goes off and he loses the spell to a significant hit. The party effectively had to deal with two major encounters at once, one of which was a level 15 cleric.
A few rounds later, the wizard unloads another shadow enchantment dominate and takes the cleric while being effectively defended by the fighter/alch/magus who can deflect most of the ranged attacks coming their way. Sure, the SoD landed, but it took a few turns. The hill giant, seeing his ally turn on him, begins attacking the spellcaster, hoping to end things, but gets torn apart before he can accomplish his goal.
Use the encounters in a clever fashion and you'll not necessarily find your "lone boss" to be so lonesome. While this boss lost his entourage, he was able to make use of other encounters to fill the gap.
I have only seen 1 boss killed on the first turn of the first round and that was just through absurd luck(3 crits max damage musket with no rerolls and 4 attacks). As a group we just asked the dm if his twin brother with exact same stats could jump out of the shadows and attack. Most bosses simply have to much hp and/or dr to kill on the first round
Also I keep seeing comments on how legendary rules are metagamey. Can someone explain this to me. I do not see how they are any more metagamey than any other rr power
They're an ability that exists for the sole purpose of having these nebulously defined "boss characters" gain extra abilities.
NPCs generally follow the same rules as PCs. An 8th level Fighter is an 8th level Fighter is an 8th level Fighter.
Making a character that has extra abilities, not because of his class training, racial qualities, or spooky magic powers from rituals and whatnot, but because they just happen to be in a position of authority is absolutely a meta mechanic. The exact same character that happened to just be second in command wouldn't have those powers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm afraid we're simply going to have to disagree on this. I feel that arbitrarily removing character agency because otherwise your imaginary dragon's feelings might get hurt is the literal antithesis of fun.
Probably the problem is not the imaginary dragon's feelign, but the fact that 4 other guys put time aside to join the game and play what was supposed to be an entertaining combat which was going to last a good bunch of time that evening, and everything ends at initiative roll 26 because the BBEG rolled 1 in his save vs dominate.
To the OP: There are a lot of things the BBEG can do to help prevent this. Most of those contingency plans revolve around contingency, but many others don't. Spell inmunity, spell turning, death ward, elemental body, protection from good, and plenty of other buffs and spells give several inmunities to things the players can do.
Players can, and should, counter those as well. Using dispel magic, different spells/methods than their uber-specialized go-to-move, using team play, etc.
I've been saying the same thing referring to why its okay for Martial's to one-shot things as opposed to wizards. The range of answers is, that is bad too, neither are bad, its okay because its harder to do, simply ignoring that argument.
It's not fun either. Round 1 intiative roll 26 gunslinger does 200hp damage to the BBEG and wins is just as anticlimatic as if the wizard casts suffocation DC 31 and the BBEG dies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anticlimax happens. Get over it and move on, there's always more game to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Long combats become boring. Excitement arises when things change rapidly.
That's true. It doesn't change the fact that finishing the combat at initiative roll 26 without anyone else playing is boring.
This sunday we played a key encounter in Iron Gods. The (mini) BBEG is a 4 armed robot with plenty of inmunities. As is, the encounter is a bit boring, tho. It's a lone boss, and he'll die in seconds. In this case, not because of SoS spells (he's flat out inmune to magic that allow spell resist), but because the gunslinger will tear him a new hole as soon as possible.
What I did as a GM was adding a few mooks (which didn't really threaten anyone), added him a bit of possitional adventage in the start of combat (namely, +8 cover) and some extra protection to avoid being one-rounded before he could act, then added an ability to cast Wall of Force. The gunslinger did some damage, not enough to kill him. The BBEG did some damage, including using a gravity rifle to grapple the gunslinger, then protected himself with the wall of force from other players.
Everybody was in their toes. Some dudes killed the mooks, others maneuvered. They made some plans to free the gunslinger from the telekinetic grapple, but suddenly the wizard desintegrated the wall of force, then the magus blade-dashed and crit-fished him to death with an uber-anti-robot sword they recently got. He was using greater invisiblity helped by mind blank from the Wizard, which countered the robot added true seeing, and with +9 Dex removed from his AC, he was no longer that hard to hit.
Dead Boss. Happy party. Everybody was effective, everybody got things to do. The Boss felt like dangerous. The combat wasn't long, it changed in a second: once the wall of force was removed, the magus could kill him in 1 round. But everybody could act, they needed several actions to remove the different layers of defense from the robot, and had to play action-and-reaction with him. They defeated him in one single round once they got in position, but as part of teamwork.
In other instances, it's the Gunslinger who kills the BBEG after a team effort. In someothers, it's the wizard, or the monk-summoner. More often than not, BBEG die in just 1 big round of crapstastic damage or really hard DC from the wizard (which is a gunslinger specialized in high DCs, for that matter, and using that for good and having fun with it). Pathfinder is very rocket-tag, specially at high level. But often, that can happen only after the players have removed some walls, or clouds, or defeated summoned monsters, triggered some contingency spell, dispelled some protective wards, or some of them use fly, dimensional door or other stuff to bypass hazards or position the team, etc.
The goal is not to ban or remove the SoS spells (or the high initative increcdible damage from the party archer/pouncing barbarian, for that matter). The goal is that such thing happen after the whole party play together to make it happen.
They're an ability that exists for the sole purpose of having these nebulously defined "boss characters" gain extra abilities.
NPCs generally follow the same rules as PCs. An 8th level Fighter is an 8th level Fighter is an 8th level Fighter.
Making a character that has extra abilities, not because of his class training, racial qualities, or spooky magic powers from rituals and whatnot, but because they just happen to be in a position of authority is absolutely a meta mechanic. The exact same character that happened to just be second in command wouldn't have those powers.
So how is that a bad thing? We apply templates all the time. If I made a Legendary Template that gave 3 rr per day then applied it to my boss monsters would it be any less metagamey than applying the advanced template or young template? Also note it doesn't need to be universally applied. I only ever use it on bosses that fight by thenselves. If you like you can explain it however you wish. Maybe the lich has perfected a custom bit of chronomancy that allows it to undo a terrible fate a few times per day. As pointed out earlies there are already feats that allow rr saving throws. Is it unreasonable to give feats with a template?
Anticlimax happens. Get over it and move on, there's always more game to play.
We have. We aren't sitting here complaining about save or suck. We are simply sharing what we have done to try and improve our game after that happens
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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).
The Star Wars films are very popular, even the prequels.
It's not fun to play in games (yay, round 15, we've been fighting this guy for over an hour, wheeeeeeee...).
It depends on what you've been doing for the last 14 rounds
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.).
I play DDO (Dungeons and Dragons Online) and one of the most interesting Boss Fights is against the Storm Giant Sorjek. It is unusual on 2 accounts:
(1) When you finally confront him, he has no minions with him.
(2) When you start fighting him, he is virtually immune to everything (including damage).
By your criterion, this would be one of the most boring fights ever, yet the very opposite is true: to defeat him you must first remove some wards that power his invulnerabilities; this involves solving a puzzle and placing a rune into an urn, all while Sorjek is raging at you.
All players can get involved in this; some grab Sorjek's attention by attacking him, others protect those in the line of fire (with healing and spells) while still others solve the puzzles and place the runes.
As more runes are placed, he becomes more vulnerable and players can then switch to more direct damage. He remains a tough fight even then. Needless to say, it is one of the most popular quests in the game.
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).
Long combats are only boring if they consist of doing the same things over and over; if they involve you doing different things they are no longer boring.
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...On that we can agree. On the other hand if this were a 10 round combat which involved 9 rounds of trying to bring the BBEG to bay (either because he is hiding behind walls, running away, throwing minions at you or whatever) that 10th round becomes a moment of triumph over adversity in which you finally realize your goal. I would suggest that such a combat is extremely exciting.
I think you're missing the point entirely.
What makes a good combat?
Answer: .
It doesn't matter if it lasts 1 round or 10, so long as everyone feels they are able to make a significant contribution. So Maybe the BBF kills the BBEG, but it was the wizard that disintegrated the wall he was hiding behind, the rogue who disabled the lightning field he was using to hurt the pcs and heal himself and the cleric that removed the paralysis that prevented the BBF from attacking. Everyone contributed, everyone is happy.
The trick is to make a series of problems for the pcs to overcome; they are resourceful and capable and will amaze you with their solutions but the more problems to overcome the more likely that a particular character will have the particular resources to deal with it. This makes combat more varied and more interesting, even while it lasts longer.
Of course there is a limit; sooner or later the pcs are going to be asking themselves "How many more hoops do we have to jump through" at which point, yes it has gone on too long and its time to bring the fight to a close.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anticlimax happens. Get over it and move on, there's always more game to play.We have. We aren't sitting here complaining about save or suck. We are simply sharing what we have done to try and improve our game after that happens
Indeed.
Occasional anticlimax happens. Chronic inability to achieve climax needs diagnosis and treatment.
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).
The Star Wars films are very popular, even the prequels.
It's not fun to play in games (yay, round 15, we've been fighting this guy for over an hour, wheeeeeeee...).It depends on what you've been doing for the last 14 rounds
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.).I play DDO (Dungeons and Dragons Online) and one of the most interesting Boss Fights is against the Storm Giant Sorjek. It is unusual on 2 accounts:
(1) When you finally confront him, he has no minions with him.
(2) When you start fighting him, he is virtually immune to everything (including damage).By your criterion, this would be one of the most boring fights ever, yet the very opposite is true: to defeat him you must first remove some wards that power his invulnerabilities; this involves solving a puzzle and placing a rune into an urn, all while Sorjek is raging at you.
All players can get involved in this; some grab Sorjek's attention by attacking him, others protect those in the line of fire (with healing and spells) while still others solve the puzzles and place the runes.
As more runes are placed, he becomes more vulnerable and players can then switch to more direct damage. He remains a tough fight even then. Needless to say, it is one of the most popular quests in the game.
...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
It's kind of weird that you quoted the part where I said "rapid change makes things interesting" and then completely ignored it where your examples have rapidly changing circumstances that keep things interesting. Of course you even agree with me again when you say it can get boring after a while:
Of course there is a limit; sooner or later the pcs are going to be asking themselves "How many more hoops do we have to jump through" at which point, yes it has gone on too long and its time to bring the fight to a close.
Fights can already be long on their own merits. Adding abilities that exist only to extend the length of the fight like "An amulet that lets them succeed on any save they want a certain number of times" are not interesting. There is no puzzle to solve to get around that. There is no strategy. There is just a guy who can automatically annul anything you throw at him a few times a day.
I have seen this used exactly once and be fun. We were fighting Cthulhu, and he had to use his Wish to undo the damage we'd done on our Initiative last round. It was fun because it was the end boss of a loooong campaign and never showed up before that, and more importantly it COST him something. He couldn't use that Wish to f*~% us over now.
You'll remember that's why I praised one of the ideas earlier in the thread. "Sacrifice an active effect to negate an effect put on you". Because it saves the boss but costs him something that will ultimately make the fight going forward easier. The spell or power actually had some kind of effect, it got rid of a buff spell. And the power an be removed, by removing their buff spells.
If you're going to create a metagame mechanic, it had better be a well designed one.
Fights can already be long on their own merits. Adding abilities that exist only to extend the length of the fight like "An amulet that lets them succeed on any save they want a certain number of times" are not interesting. There is no puzzle to solve to get around that. There is no strategy. There is just a guy who can automatically annul anything you throw at him a few times a day.
I have seen this used exactly once and be fun. We were fighting Cthulhu, and he had to use his Wish to undo the damage we'd done on our Initiative last round. It was fun because it was the end boss of a loooong campaign and never showed up before that, and more importantly it COST him something. He couldn't use that Wish to f#!& us over now.
You'll remember that's why I praised one of the ideas earlier in the thread. "Sacrifice an active effect to negate an effect put on you". Because it saves the boss but costs him something that will ultimately make the fight going forward easier. The spell or power actually had some kind of effect, it got rid of a buff spell. And the power an be removed, by removing their buff spells.
If you're going to create a metagame mechanic, it had better be a well designed one.
It's no more of a metagame mechanic than just about any other mechanic, really... There are rules for hero points, and many use them. Why couldn't bad guys? There are rules for inventing spells and magic items, why couldn't bad guys use them?
I heartily disagree with your assessment that being able to cancel a few saves per day removes all strategy and fun. Sure, you *can* add puzzles and whatnot to make it *better*, but the mechanic itself is not bad. The caster I've had the most fun with (up until we got so high level that every monsters' saves scaled way, way faster than my own spells' DCs) specialized in SoS in a game where the GM gave bad guy points to negate said spells. But those points could be used to negate not just save effects, so there was indeed a lot of strategy involved in determining how best to peel away these defense points. After all, he didn't *need* to use them every time he could, spamming lower effects could dissuade him from using them, thus him being defeated with "wasted" unused points, or could make him use them to other ends instead. Sometimes it was better to unleash all of the best spells at once, sometimes it was better to keep the big guns for after the defenses were down. Depended on the boss.
But I had fun. It only starts feeling meta-gamey, and cheating, if these points just spring out of nowhere as a surprise, and only come into play upon GM caviat, for example only in turn 1 or only specifically against certain spells. There's also no reason to not grant the players similar powers. After all, I think most GMs don't use Save or Die creatures because taking a PC out of combat for 1 unlucky roll just isn't fun. But if the players have points of defenses, then it becomes much more tempting to use a cockatrice or the like against the PCs.
I think the main gripe of Villian points is if the players don't have equivalent. Giving bad guys something that the player's CAN'T have feels bad for a lot of players. Part of the premise of a bad guy in pathfinder is that if you made all the same choices you'd be him. If that ceases to be the case then it starts to feel unfun, unfair, or like cheating to some people.
If you're going to create a metagame mechanic, it had better be a well designed one.
Well designed is in the eye of the beholder (near the anti-magic cone). Hero points, improved iron will, improved lightning reflexes, improved great fortitude, fortune hex, ring of delayed doom, luck domain, moment of prescience, cat's luck, defiant luck, foresight wizard school, monkey's paw, fate's shears, and plenty more allow you to reroll a save, give a ridiculous bonus, or just negate that it even happened. There are also many that let an ally reroll a save. They range from items/abilities you can get at level 1, to those like moment of prescience at the very high end.
If you go by item values, it's 5,000gp per single use negation, 12k for reroll 1/day.
Giving bad guys something that the player's CAN'T have feels bad for a lot of players.
I fondly remember my players lamenting their lost loot when Karzoug's ioun stones all shattered on his death.
I think the main gripe of Villian points is if the players don't have equivalent
That makes no sense. To begin with: there are also Hero Points, which the heroes have and the NPC can't have.
Giving bad guys something that the player's CAN'T have feels bad for a lot of players
But it happens all the time, in every single (critically acclaimed) Paizo Adventure Path.
Let's see, I'm going to name just a few bosses from the top of my head from the best APs I have played or GMed, which gave us great time and did have BBEG with unique traits you, as the player, can't have or replicate.Iron Gods
Kingmaker
Rise of Runelords
she gains complete immunity to mind-affecting effects. In
addition, she possesses SR 32 against spells from the school
of transmutation. " . Which is something players can't have
Shattered Star
I could go on, but you get the idea. Bassically every single BBEG from every AP, ever has some kind of unique trait which makes him, well, unique.
It's not just the BBEG, for that matter. Random encounter with a dinosaur riding tribe in Iron Gods, and the riders have a trait called "Fengar Infused" which gives them +8 alchemical bonus to STR, DEX and CON, plus Iron Will and Great Fortitude. That's something the players can't have, ever. And it's not even in a BBEG, it's a random dude in the middle of nowhere, a Challenge rating like 4 levels below the party. He's a mook, and he's there to die in a run-of-the-mill combat.
There are literally HUNDREDS of other examples where the NPC have unique traits, linked to story, and abilities that players can't have. Ghosts that can't die until certain item is buried, clerics infused with god's might that become inmune to a certain element, wizards that have unique enchantments, spells, or constructs. Just from the first book in the current AP, Strange Aeons, we have traits named "anchored to consciuousness" and "nightmare transformation", which are unique traits for the BBEG of the AP, which nobody else can have except him. Baba Yaga adds her huge CHA to armor, saves, and HP per level. She can cast all witch and wizard spells, and gain several inmunities because of her age (charm, ability drain, etc). Her familiar gives her 300hp. Normal wizards/witches familiars DON'T grant 300hp.
I get why some people might object to a blank template like "Boss", because it feels metagamey. But you can give him exactly the same traits, using story-linked traits. Just like the Tatterman is Anchored to Consciousness and produce "nightmare transformation", you could give him a trait called "creature made of dreams" which allow him to reroll saves or ignore the first failed one or act twice in a round or reduce Nauseted, Stun, Sleep to sickened, staggered, confused. Or whatever you need, to make the story feel fun and unique.
Sorry, you missed my point.
If I'm fighting a fighter, he should be something that I could have been.
If enemy fighters get an extra feat every level, but PC fighters don't, then that's the issue.
So if enemy fighters have free rerolls, but a PC fighter can't gain such ability then there's a problem.
If the players have hero points, then give big villains hero points, no problem. My point was giving villains hero points when the players don't have hero points.
the deal is, if fengar infused is giving a bonus, should my character do whatever was required to gain that power, then we'd be equal. Saying, the BBEG is a boss so he gains a free boss powers can feel lame to players since there's nothing special the enemy did to get his powers and it's something that the PCs can't do. They'd need the GM to arbitrarily name them a boss to gain such template.
|
|
It's usually something that the villains have no qualms about using, but the PCs would.
Do you complain when the villain gets rerolls from his dark god? Your PC could totally worship the dark god. He might not be a PC anymore if he does, however.
Likewise, your PC could have regeneration, if he became a troll.
Sorry, you missed my point.
If I'm fighting a fighter, he should be something that I could have been.
If enemy fighters get an extra feat every level, but PC fighters don't, then that's the issue.So if enemy fighters have free rerolls, but a PC fighter can't gain such ability then there's a problem.
No, you missed my point. Viori is a fighter. She has a trait, called "Champion of the Runelord", that gives her inmunity to mind affecting spells and Spell resistance, because plot reasons.
Your fighter can't have that, period. EDIT: well, as TriOmegaZero says: your fighter can have that, if he pledges loyalty in body and soul to the Runelord of Avarice, and thus become a NPC
It happens all the time. The Lashunta dinosaur riders I mentioned above have a trait called "fengar infused" that gives them +8 alchemical bonus to STR, DEX and CON, and Iron Will and Great Fortitude, because they were infused with a substance called fengar since they are raised as fighters, in that particular place in that particular AP. Your fighter can't have that, period. He would need to be born again, as a lashunta, in that particular Habitat Pod, and be raised as a fighter of Unity's cult and infused by his minions with the alchemical product. Which he can't, because you can't time travel and be born again 30 years ago as a lashunta. And if you could, you would be a minion of Unity. In fact, "Pawn of Unity" is also a trait, that some NPC in the AP have. Gives you +6 to all stats, and some other stuff. But also the BBEG can see what you do, and can cast Demand on you at will and you can't resist, which means you are no longer a PC if you ever get it.
The fighters that go with Lord Soth are skeletal champions. That's a template your fighter can't have, under normal circumstances, because skeletal champion is not a playable race
There are like six zillions of things your fighter can't have, and fighters in the adventures have, because of plot reasons. Instead of "Fengar Infused: these fighters have +8 to STR, DEX and CON, and Iron will and great fortitude as bonus feats, because they have access to some unique hand-made stuff that only the BBEG has", it would be "Fengar Infused: These fighters can reroll failed saves, because they have access to some unique hand-made stuff that only the BBEG has"
I think the main gripe of Villian points is if the players don't have equivalent. Giving bad guys something that the player's CAN'T have feels bad for a lot of players. Part of the premise of a bad guy in pathfinder is that if you made all the same choices you'd be him. If that ceases to be the case then it starts to feel unfun, unfair, or like cheating to some people.
Hero points...... There is literally a laundry list of reroll powers even without hero points. Also there is plenty of ways for a dm to explain how he got the extra rr powers
Sorry, you missed my point.
If I'm fighting a fighter, he should be something that I could have been.
If enemy fighters get an extra feat every level, but PC fighters don't, then that's the issue.So if enemy fighters have free rerolls, but a PC fighter can't gain such ability then there's a problem.
If the players have hero points, then give big villains hero points, no problem. My point was giving villains hero points when the players don't have hero points.
the deal is, if fengar infused is giving a bonus, should my character do whatever was required to gain that power, then we'd be equal. Saying, the BBEG is a boss so he gains a free boss powers can feel lame to players since there's nothing special the enemy did to get his powers and it's something that the PCs can't do. They'd need the GM to arbitrarily name them a boss to gain such template.
Very well then. All of my bosses have been called into another plane of existence that can only be entered by being called where they were endowed with the powers of free rr by the great heffalump lord. Your conditions have been met. Anything else?
I think the main gripe of Villian points is if the players don't have equivalent. Giving bad guys something that the player's CAN'T have feels bad for a lot of players. Part of the premise of a bad guy in pathfinder is that if you made all the same choices you'd be him. If that ceases to be the case then it starts to feel unfun, unfair, or like cheating to some people.Hero points...... There is literally a laundry list of reroll powers even without hero points. Also there is plenty of ways for a dm to explain how he got the extra rr powers
You do realize nobody but you is talking about re-rolls, right? This whole line of discussion was spawn by someone who said just give the boss the ability to automatically succeed on his save multiple times during the fight.
You do realize nobody but you is talking about re-rolls, right? This whole line of discussion was spawn by someone who said just give the boss the ability to automatically succeed on his save multiple times during the fight.I think the main gripe of Villian points is if the players don't have equivalent. Giving bad guys something that the player's CAN'T have feels bad for a lot of players. Part of the premise of a bad guy in pathfinder is that if you made all the same choices you'd be him. If that ceases to be the case then it starts to feel unfun, unfair, or like cheating to some people.Hero points...... There is literally a laundry list of reroll powers even without hero points. Also there is plenty of ways for a dm to explain how he got the extra rr powers
Ok I missed that. Pretty sure most of my logical points still apply
I've been saying the same thing referring to why its okay for Martial's to one-shot things as opposed to wizards. The range of answers is, that is bad too, neither are bad, its okay because its harder to do, simply ignoring that argument.It's not fun either. Round 1 intiative roll 26 gunslinger does 200hp damage to the BBEG and wins is just as anticlimatic as if the wizard casts suffocation DC 31 and the BBEG dies.
So you would fall into the, that's bad too catagory thanks for adding your vote to the none existent poll.