Now these kinds of spells / effects are incredibly popular choices among players. Many builds talk about use of things such as Color Spray and Sleep effect among others
But in the case of my players they get incredibly unhappy when the tables are turned. Notably in the case of effects that remove their ability to do anything in combat for several rounds (such as paralysis)
Now do I just have pampered players whose previous GM has been going easy on them? Or do they have a point about how frustrating it is for one saving throw to remove them from a combat completely
I note that 2E looks like they are taking a step away from these effects by introducing a sliding scale. Perhaps I should look at doing this (with the obvious caveat of it going both ways)
I wonder what lesser forms of sleep, daze or paralysis would be?
What do people think?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From personal experience... effects sucha as paralysis and sleep can be incredibly annoying. Nothing like losing a lot of your valuable play time not doing anything. It's really tempting for me as a GM to use it as well. My suggestion? Give the party ways to deal with it. Perhaps make paralysis have a save every round to break? Sleep isn't that bad, as it can be broken relatively easily. Give them ways to work around it, and it isn't nearly as annoying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it all depends on what your players are used to. In earlier editions of d&d you had a lot of save or die effects. Pathfinder softened this and instead of save or die, they did more Save or get hit really hard instead. Disintegrate is a great example of this sort of shift.
When Save or Die was more common, it was far more preferable to get hit with a save or suck instead. So, in comparison it didn't seem so bad.
"At least I'm ONLY paralyzed"
Now, that those kinds of spells are rare (Phantasmal Killer relies on multiple bad rolls to even work), Save or Suck type spells get a lot more hate.
IMO anything is fair game so long as players know to expect it and have a chance to prepare. There are spells and abilities that allow you to get around most save or suck type effects and the players should adopt stratagems to minimize the effects in response. If they choose not to, I feel it's on them.
I mean, a significant chunk of the bestiary has abilities or spells that nauseate, paralyze, blind, sleep, petrify, or otherwise neutralize opponents. Most of these effects are brief, but many are not. Nearly all have free or cheap cures so long as the victim doesn't end up dead as a result. Such risks are an expected part of the game. Treating your players with kid gloves in this regard will lead to them complaining about the next most annoying thing down the line.
Yeah. You have whiny players. Those effects and spells are part of the game. If they don't like it, they need a better party composition that allows them to counter such things.
Good for the goose, good for the gander.
If you and your players don't find this kind of effect fun, I don't see any problem in taking them out of your game, but it should be removed from your players arsenal as well as their opponents. Given the choice, it might be interesting to see what they decide.
Personally I house rule most of those abilities to deal an amount of d6's of stat damage (usally 3d6). My players seam to enjoy it more then flat out you lose.
As a player I know that it is never fun if you cannot do anything for a significant part of the combat. Normally I try to avoid things that are unfun for players. Save or Sucks/Dies are not one of them. It is an element of the game and one I'm not really going to compromise on as I think the game would be even less fun without them. There are very few things that can worry a player, these are one of them. And if they go away and prepare for them, they can be rewarded for being prepared.
I'd just have a word with your players and let them know these effects are not going away, so plan accordingly.
I'm a fan of removing them from player and NPC options, but more as a Gentleman's Agreement sort of deal.
In my house rules I specifically include a note that any combos or anything you use as a player that's highly effective are likely to show up on an NPC at some point. So building that super awesome wizard diviner who always goes first and lays down a couple of spells to almost single-handedly win combat means you will encounter the same at some point.
Personally I house rule most of those abilities to deal an amount of d6's of stat damage (usally 3d6). My players seam to enjoy it more then flat out you lose.
Buh? That's often worse than the effects you're talking about.
Personally I house rule most of those abilities to deal an amount of d6's of stat damage (usally 3d6). My players seam to enjoy it more then flat out you lose.Buh? That's often worse than the effects you're talking about.
Perhaps it is temporary? So when something has an effect of paralysis for 1d6 rounds it instead becomes 3d6 dex for 1d6 rounds...
Personally I house rule most of those abilities to deal an amount of d6's of stat damage (usally 3d6). My players seam to enjoy it more then flat out you lose.Buh? That's often worse than the effects you're talking about.
Lol I won't disagree, it's probbly overkill. I mosly use it for effects that last hours or longer, mainly paralysis, petrifiecation, and effects the kill you instantly. My players and I would rather die cuz 3 d6's rolled hight then fumbling one roll.
Edit: Also what Lanathar said above
There are always ways of dealing with things. Yes, it sucks to fail a big save vs a fear effect for example, but as people have said they're generally limited in duration, or the other players will have abilities available to solve the issue. It shouldn't be something that needs to have punches pulled for the most part. Levitate on the other hand? No save, no SR, congrats you float away? I have used that one to level a playing field from the PC side more than once. One day it will be used against me, and I will have to think my way around it.
Save or suck is called that for a reason... for a player, especially in a larger group (or a group that takes a long time for combat) the game becomes really boring when you can't do anything for the majority of the combat. Especially when that combat lasts for over an hour.
That being said, as a GM I'm totally willing to use those powers on the group if they're usually using them against the monsters. (But trying to avoid always targeting the same player with them.)
@Wildmonsters @Lanathar Oh, that makes sense. Yeah, that's a pretty interesting idea.
Thanks everyone
I noted effects as well as spells in my post but wasn’t clear in what I meant
I agree on a lot of the comments regarding work around for spell effects
The incidents that were causing player irritation was creature bites / attack’s that cause multi round paralysis. As these don’t tend to have ways of breaking them easily
I think it was mostly a harsh module
I'm guessing ghouls and/or ghasts? Ghouls are a real eye-opener for low-level parties used to being able to just wade in and go toe-to-toe, especially if they don't invest in at least a bit of AC. They will wreck things if given the chance, and it isn't out of character for a ghoul to coup-de-grace in the middle of a pitched fight, especially if it's starving.
(Back in 2E, the first game I ever DM'd ended abruptly in a TPK. 8 2nd level PCs versus 1 carrion crawler, a "low-tier" critter with a whopping 8 tentacle attacks that do no damage except to paralyze for at least twenty rounds. Nothing like having to tell a player to make five saving throws versus paralyzation....)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they're fine to include at least sometimes. Otherwise you render any precautions players take against them meaningless, and/or nerf-by-extension things that are balanced around having some of those protections innately. Possibly without players having been made aware so they can account for it. I'd be peeved if I spent resources, say, shoring up my Will saves, or casting Protection from Evil a lot, and then the worst threats they would be preventing weren't really in the game my GM was running.
And as long as it's not constant, it's scarcely a game-ruiner.
Yeah of course they do. Combat can take hours in panthfinder a game people get to play for 3-4 hours a week if they’re lucky and it can be something people look forward to all week.
Then you tell them they’re going to sit and watch for an hour+ of that time? Yeah that’s frustrating.
An NPC gets taken out of the combat that’s the point of them, the DM should have more, the DM can keep DMing. A pc gets taken out, that’s it the player is out.
|
If there's no way to deal with them they can be extremely lousy and demoralising. But that doesn't mean that SoS shouldn't be used at all - just sparingly and carefully.
You want to throw ghouls at your PCs? Give them advance warning - an opportunity to research and prepare. Maybe toss them a scroll of remove paralysis.
I learnt from another GM "Whatever you bring to the table, I use too" as a consideration to have. In fact we did face variations of our own shenanigans in time. All in good nature, of course.
I hit a player with a 10 round Nauseated state that required a 2 consecutive save (save every round), at 13th level. That was seen as borderline tyrannical and cruel by some. I eventually alleviated it with a 2 saves non consecutive, that player is known to roll pretty terribly when it matters.
Now, they werent complaining that it was harsh, because we can deal with harsh stuff..but rather that the player was effectively taken out of a whole combat (easily 1 hour of play by those levels).
This is unfun, I've been on the receiving side of that and well, and sitting there for 1 hour plus looking at the ceiling is really not why you come to play.