Permanent negative status effects are awful

[Tarik Blackhands]

Sort of unrelated, but you're the first person I've ever seen who actually considered a lich's paralyzing touch as some notable factor in its favor. Short of flat out curveball lich builds (no one expects the bruiser warpriest/magus lich!) that sucker's getting dumpstered the minute anyone wielding a weapon more substantial than a wet noodle enters CC with it.

Liches are used over wizard skeletons for the phylactery and regeneration, not a desperation gimmick poke.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Sort of unrelated, but you're the first person I've ever seen who actually considered a lich's paralyzing touch as some notable factor in its favor. Short of flat out curveball lich builds (no one expects the bruiser warpriest/magus lich!) that sucker's getting dumpstered the minute anyone wielding a weapon more substantial than a wet noodle enters CC with it.

Liches are used over wizard skeletons for the phylactery and regeneration, not a desperation gimmick poke.

Well, the phylactery and regeneration gimmicks are similarly "desperation gimmicks," since any smart or experienced players/PCs will find and destroy said phylactery, making it more of an inconvenience for players instead of an actual threat. Of course, a GM could be a giant dick (and the lich could be actually smart) and just have the phylactery be in a place that the PCs can't ever get it short of being extremely informed or using high level scrying tactics.

Conversely, a Lich in PF1 whom would paralyze an enemy with a bad will save is actually a smart move in removing potential threats, especially without burning high level spells on actual threats, like other spellcasters. The problem then becomes "Why would he prioritize martials over spellcasters," to which I say "Well, the enemy spellcasters will be defeated eventually, and unfortunately, even a martial will become a threat at some point. Better have some sort of counter to them when that time comes.

[Barnabas Eckleworth III]

I wrote a 20th level adventure where the bad guy is a lich sorcerer and his lair is a castle with an extradimensional maze at the front. And one room is a pit of lava with no floor. You just portal in, and you'd better be able to fly. Yea.. his phylactery is at the bottom of the lava in a fireproof container (he doesn't want people finding it).

[Tarik Blackhands]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Sort of unrelated, but you're the first person I've ever seen who actually considered a lich's paralyzing touch as some notable factor in its favor. Short of flat out curveball lich builds (no one expects the bruiser warpriest/magus lich!) that sucker's getting dumpstered the minute anyone wielding a weapon more substantial than a wet noodle enters CC with it.

Liches are used over wizard skeletons for the phylactery and regeneration, not a desperation gimmick poke.

Well, the phylactery and regeneration gimmicks are similarly "desperation gimmicks," since any smart or experienced players/PCs will find and destroy said phylactery, making it more of an inconvenience for players instead of an actual threat. Of course, a GM could be a giant dick (and the lich could be actually smart) and just have the phylactery be in a place that the PCs can't ever get it short of being extremely informed or using high level scrying tactics.

Conversely, a Lich in PF1 whom would paralyze an enemy with a bad will save is actually a smart move in removing potential threats, especially without burning high level spells on actual threats, like other spellcasters. The problem then becomes "Why would he prioritize martials over spellcasters," to which I say "Well, the enemy spellcasters will be defeated eventually, and unfortunately, even a martial will become a threat at some point. Better have some sort of counter to them when that time comes.

Fortitude, not Will first of all. And a phylactery isn't a desperation tactic, that's a quest hook or more properly a wrinkle in how to destroy the monster over the basic "whack till not moving." It makes the encounter different not necessarily harder. Paralyze touch is a pure combat gimmick I roughly equate to an onside kick in football. It's something that exists for when all other reasonable ways to not-lose are unavailable and will 9/10 times end in pure failure. It doesn't add anything notable to the encounter or the monster, it's as I said: a gimmick and not even an entertaining one like the phylactery.

[Barnabas Eckleworth III]

I look at the lich phylactery thing as similar to the vampire's coffin, as far as story hooks this-isn't-your-standard-badguy stuff.

[The DM of]

Liches don't want you to have a good time. I think we all can agree on that.

[Steelfiredragon]

if you dont like the lich's paralyzation touch, well remember that the monster manua;/Beastiarys, creature codexs , etc are all guidelines.
find a different power to give it and make the lich more unique.
but dont make it under powered though as nobody likes a wimpy challenge

[Edge93]

Steelfiredragon wrote:

if you dont like the lich's paralyzation touch, well remember that the monster manua;/Beastiarys, creature codexs , etc are all guidelines.

find a different power to give it and make the lich more unique.
but dont make it under powered though as nobody likes a wimpy challenge

This was a thought of mine as well. Given how it seems a LOT more people are fine with deadly abilities like this than not, it makes far more sense to leave it to be houseruled by those who dislike it than to take it away from the many who do and expect them to houserule it back in if they want it.

Like, "you can just houserule it if you don't like it" is an easily abused argument but there are definitely cases where it is applicable.

[Ninja in the Rye]

Steelfiredragon wrote:

if you dont like the lich's paralyzation touch, well remember that the monster manua;/Beastiarys, creature codexs , etc are all guidelines.

find a different power to give it and make the lich more unique.
but dont make it under powered though as nobody likes a wimpy challenge

The vast majority of people playing Pathfinder are not the GM and/or not running a home game, and, thus, have no actual power to house rule something.

[Edge93]

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Steelfiredragon wrote:

if you dont like the lich's paralyzation touch, well remember that the monster manua;/Beastiarys, creature codexs , etc are all guidelines.

find a different power to give it and make the lich more unique.
but dont make it under powered though as nobody likes a wimpy challenge

The vast majority of people playing Pathfinder are not the GM and/or not running a home game, and, thus, have no actual power to house rule something.

The majority of people playing Pathfinder also don't have a problem with these things on a fundamental level and shouldn't necessarily have to have them removed just because a few people insist on having a problem with them no matter how many counterpoints or solutions to deal with it are offered.

[Artificial 20]

The majority of people playing Pathfinder agree with me. Those who don't are the minority, statistical outliers, atypical.

Hard facts.

[thorin001]

Lots of GMs seem to have a problem with Save-or-Suck effects making the fights with their big bad irrelevant because of single die roll. Lots of players seem to have a problem with SoS effects making their characters irrelevant because of a single die roll. So it would seem that SoS/SoD effects are a problem all around.

In addition anything with a duration longer than the encounter has a disparate impact on player characters. If the bad guy is permanently blinded/deafened/paralyze/whatever it is no big deal because he is probably dead, and if not is still likely t be "Sir No-Longer-Appearing-In-This-Adventure". Not so for a PC. Those effects carry on, and those that render a character unplayable take a player out for a while. If there is an easy fix, like a (relatively) low to medium level spell then it is no big deal.

That is not to say that these things cannot be used, but you must be aware of the pitfalls of doing so.

[Edge93]

Artificial 20 wrote:

The majority of people playing Pathfinder agree with me. Those who don't are the minority, statistical outliers, atypical.

Hard facts.

Agreed, I don't know the actual statistics. I meant to be more pointing out that virtually no one else in this thread has agreed with having a problem with these effects on a base level, and that the OP has just brushed aside every point on how these abilities can and should be used in a positive way and without completely taking the player out of the game experience, without seeming to give any counter-argument any actual consideration.

I apologize, my initial comment was worded a bit fallaciously and likely could have been phrased better.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

It's certainly very similar, no matter which way you look at it.

No, it's most certainly not unless you're engaging in the reduction to absurdity fallacy and not actually interested in any sort of good faith discussion on the subject. Which seems to be the case here, so I don't see any point in us continuing to discuss this.

Except it is, when the topic is about the point of having such mechanics in the game, you complaining about one of those mechanics, and then when called out on it, you claim it's irrelevant to the discussion. Maybe instead of trying to change the subject, you actually bother to engage in my statements besides dismissing them on grounds of relevance, when I've made it quite clear that your claim of removing one effect calls into question where the line of "permanent bad effects" should be drawn, and others have made similar callouts within those same quotations.

Regardless, I'll agree with your statement of there not being a point in continuation of discussion, but I didn't reach that conclusion because of some supposed aspect of irrelevance of my statements, but because it's been made quite clear you didn't make this thread for no point other than to get people to agree with your cause to make a rules change that better suits your table's playstyle instead of considering that other table playstyles can be (and most probably are) valid. In which there is no reason for trying to persuade the mind of someone whose decisions and ramifications are already set in their ways and have no reason or desire to change.

Good luck with your crusade. You'll need it.

[Loreguard]

Suggestion which might help with the situation, or at least what sounds like is the concern. Single die rolls generating a completely debilitating situation.

Developers have acknowledged that Save or Suck effects, especially long term ones are traumatic, and they have already done quite a lot to reduce the likelihood of them occurring, at least based on only a single roll. Having a sidebar talking about such results, and a clearly available optional rule or two that helps.

Obviously, certain effects, such as disintegrate, if it proves to have been successful, its effect is pretty well defined. However, some effects, such as a permanent paralysis example, could be tweaked to allow another chance to avoid the permanent (near-permanent, since there are remedies) implication of the effect.

My example would be that if within 10 minutes of the effect, if they get assistance (although that wouldn't even have to be a requirement). At that point they can make a second save. If they succeed, you could have the effect soften significantly. Instead of permanent paralysis, they get hit with the slow condition for 24 hours.

So the gist of my suggestion being that anything that does permanent debilitating effect, would carry through at minimum through the encounter, but would allow an subsequent save to shorten and reduce the magnitude of the impact. That subsequent save might have the benefit of aid bonuses or other spell benefits to help them potentially make that final save.

I do want to mention that if you use hero points which are now supposed to be a core part of the game, no one should ever get taken out by a single roll. Because with hero points, they often should be able to re-roll a critical saving though that was going to have catastrophic results. However, the mentioned sidebar could point out the utility of hero points with helping to address this, and if a GM does not use Hero points, they may want to consider other possible safeguards which could make sense.

[Franz Lunzer]

Reroll costs two hero points though. And each player is only "guaranteed" one hero point per session.

Even if the player in question has more than one hero point, does he spend two for the reroll or save them for the character dying?

[KujakuDM]

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

The vast majority of people playing Pathfinder are not the GM and/or not running a home game, and, thus, have no actual power to house rule something.

So run a game then.

[Edge93]

Franz Lunzer wrote:

Reroll costs two hero points though. And each player is only "guaranteed" one hero point per session.

Even if the player in question has more than one hero point, does he spend two for the reroll or save them for the character dying?

I mean if the reroll is to prevent a permanent status effect or insta-death I think the choice is pretty clear. XD

Besides, hero points aren't made for min-maxing. Holding out on your points and accepting a permanent-until-cured status effect because you -might- get knocked down to dying later and you'd rather have hero points for that than trust your party to save you in time is decidedly UN-heroic...

[MaxAstro]

Unheroic, but completely logical and a serious problem with the hero point system as it stands.

[Matthew Downie]

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I don't want a game where my character can't have his soul sucked into a gem by an evil demilich. Who would want to live in a world like that?

Hey, that happened to my character!

It ended the campaign, in an unsatisfactory unresolved manner, and made it feel like the last few months of the game were pointless, and I quit Pathfinder (not permanently, as it turned out), because why get involved in a campaign or a character if that's how it's probably going to end?

So it's nice to know there are some people who like that kind of thing.

[Barnabas Eckleworth III]

Had some hard-won, epic victories in my decades of playing. Also had some gnarly deaths, dismemberments, souls sucked out, disintegrations. Many of these are still the stories we tell years later. Good times.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I don't want a game where my character can't have his soul sucked into a gem by an evil demilich. Who would want to live in a world like that?

Hey, that happened to my character!

It ended the campaign, in an unsatisfactory unresolved manner, and made it feel like the last few months of the game were pointless, and I quit Pathfinder (not permanently, as it turned out), because why get involved in a campaign or a character if that's how it's probably going to end?

So it's nice to know there are some people who like that kind of thing.

It's not so much "like it" as it is "accepting your fate." It's not like people were wanting this stuff to happen (except maybe that one time where it would be funny), that's just the result of playing the game.

If this stuff couldn't happen, then everyone and their grandma would be out adventuring. Clearly, this isn't the case, because most people can't or don't want to brave this stuff out.

[Artificial 20]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I don't want a game where my character can't have his soul sucked into a gem by an evil demilich. Who would want to live in a world like that?

Hey, that happened to my character!

It ended the campaign, in an unsatisfactory unresolved manner, and made it feel like the last few months of the game were pointless, and I quit Pathfinder (not permanently, as it turned out), because why get involved in a campaign or a character if that's how it's probably going to end?

So it's nice to know there are some people who like that kind of thing.

It's not so much "like it" as it is "accepting your fate." It's not like people were wanting this stuff to happen (except maybe that one time where it would be funny), that's just the result of playing the game.

If this stuff couldn't happen, then everyone and their grandma would be out adventuring. Clearly, this isn't the case, because most people can't or don't want to brave this stuff out.

I disagree.

In this age in real life, close to everyone can eat healthily, barring low income or medical conditions.

Yet McDonalds.

I assert that in a world without save or suck many people and their grandmas still wouldn't bother.

[Barnabas Eckleworth III]

Heroes don't usually go out to stop the evil villain who turns people's hair pink. Or the dastardly bad guy who constantly makes everyone's wagon wheel fall off.
Ancient liches who spent a thousand years building their powers probably didn't make a diabolical maze filled with poisoned darts that give you a tummyache, or a pit filled with pillows at the bottom.
They don't want people coming after them. So they come up with evil and vicious stuff to kill you with.

[gwynfrid]

Artificial 20 wrote:

I disagree.

In this age in real life, close to everyone can eat healthily, barring low income or medical conditions.

Yet McDonalds.

I assert that in a world without save or suck many people and their grandmas still wouldn't bother.

Not sure I get your analogy. Unhealthy eating at McDonalds is a health risk, but it is not in the slightest comparable to adventuring in the Pathfinder world. One is a long term, poorly defined risk, while the other is an immediate and definite risk to die in a wide variety of very painful ways.

Anyway, I think that a world without save or be permanently disabled or dead is unquestionably a less heroic world than one where such hazards exist.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Artificial 20 wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I don't want a game where my character can't have his soul sucked into a gem by an evil demilich. Who would want to live in a world like that?

Hey, that happened to my character!

It ended the campaign, in an unsatisfactory unresolved manner, and made it feel like the last few months of the game were pointless, and I quit Pathfinder (not permanently, as it turned out), because why get involved in a campaign or a character if that's how it's probably going to end?

So it's nice to know there are some people who like that kind of thing.

It's not so much "like it" as it is "accepting your fate." It's not like people were wanting this stuff to happen (except maybe that one time where it would be funny), that's just the result of playing the game.

If this stuff couldn't happen, then everyone and their grandma would be out adventuring. Clearly, this isn't the case, because most people can't or don't want to brave this stuff out.

I disagree.

In this age in real life, close to everyone can eat healthily, barring low income or medical conditions.

Yet McDonalds.

I assert that in a world without save or suck many people and their grandmas still wouldn't bother.

Only in certain areas of the world. Other areas in the world, not so much.

Just because it exists and people use it as an outlet of mealtime doesn't mean that people don't instead choose to cook for themselves, or eat a less risky (but more costly) restaurant every time they get hungry.

In fact, it is because of those health risks that I will rather cook for myself or starve to death than eat McDonalds, to be frank. Guess that makes me a commoner in today's times, and that's fine. It's why I roleplay the hero, not become it.

[Raylyeh]

Hugh, I guess I’d make a great adventurer. Do to a number of factors I won’t go into I have made my peace with the fact that I will live a shorter and crappier life than the statistical average. So I will continue to eat yummy fast food and smoke a pack a day, now I have to get me a sword or wizard hat!

[Ninja in the Rye]

KujakuDM wrote:

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

The vast majority of people playing Pathfinder are not the GM and/or not running a home game, and, thus, have no actual power to house rule something.

So run a game then.

I do, thanks.

I currently GM for two different groups, actually.

Shockingly enough I sometimes like to actually participate in games as a player instead of as a GM, at which point I have no power to house rule anything.

I'm also in the playtest forum giving my feedback on what I consider to be an issue in the playtest rules that will negatively impact the game, which, as I understand it, is the primary point of the playtest in the first place.

[KujakuDM]

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Shockingly enough I sometimes like to actually participate in games as a player instead of as a GM, at which point I have no power to house rule anything.

Talk to the GM and ask them to house rule it or change something. Ask to have something to do if it happens to you. Unless your GM is a totalitarian jerk they may at least look towards your opinion.

I often have some backup NPC's hanging around in the periphery just in case. I love the leadership feat just for these situations. They aren't going to unbalance the game or anything but can at least help people that get debilitated (or dead) stay engaged.

Maybe don't play RPG's with people who aren't willing to discuss things.

[The DM of]

This thread has come full circle and can fade away now.

Permanent negative status effects ARE awful. Everyone agrees on that. Some folks are split on whether that makes their game play enjoyable or not and will never agree. PF will have them. Houserule to your preference.

Thread solved. :)

[Edge93]

The DM of wrote:

This thread has come full circle and can fade away now.

Permanent negative status effects ARE awful. Everyone agrees on that. Some folks are split on whether that makes their game play enjoyable or not and will never agree. PF will have them. Houserule to your preference.

Thread solved. :)

Yeah, that's... about right.

[Tarik Blackhands]

Frankly the "oh just houserule it" argument bugs the snot out of me. If that's the law of the land why the hell is anyone in this playtest forum to begin with?

Your box containing 2e could contain nothing but a feral puma that mauls the first person to open it and the old argument of "Well that's PF now, just houserule it per your preference" applies just as much as it does with save/lose effects.

[MER-c]

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Frankly the "oh just houserule it" argument bugs the snot out of me. If that's the law of the land why the hell is anyone in this playtest forum to begin with?

Your box containing 2e could contain nothing but a feral puma that mauls the first person to open it and the old argument of "Well that's PF now, just houserule it per your preference" applies just as much as it does with save/lose effects.

Mostly because Pathfidner and every D&D variant short of 5e (Not sure about 4e, don't have a book for it) has a proviso inside the front cover affectionately called Rule Zero. Rule Zero amounts to.

"These are just guidelines", such that while each rule exists for a reason, the DM can, and should, bend or outright break the rules if doing so provides a more fun experience for everyone. Some of my favorite rules have been pulled out of the DM's hat because it was funny and in some cases I outright overrode a core rule of PF1 that prevented charging and Vital Strike, because we thought it wasn't fun that charges didn't do much damage, so now we can Vital Strike on a charge.

[Tarik Blackhands]

MER-c wrote:

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Frankly the "oh just houserule it" argument bugs the snot out of me. If that's the law of the land why the hell is anyone in this playtest forum to begin with?

Your box containing 2e could contain nothing but a feral puma that mauls the first person to open it and the old argument of "Well that's PF now, just houserule it per your preference" applies just as much as it does with save/lose effects.

Mostly because Pathfidner and every D&D variant short of 5e (Not sure about 4e, don't have a book for it) has a proviso inside the front cover affectionately called Rule Zero. Rule Zero amounts to.

"These are just guidelines", such that while each rule exists for a reason, the DM can, and should, bend or outright break the rules if doing so provides a more fun experience for everyone. Some of my favorite rules have been pulled out of the DM's hat because it was funny and in some cases I outright overrode a core rule of PF1 that prevented charging and Vital Strike, because we thought it wasn't fun that charges didn't do much damage, so now we can Vital Strike on a charge.

Which is fine, but again, if all woes can be cured by invoking rule 0, why bother posting feedback in the playtest or doing the favorite internet past time of bickering with other people? It leads no where and honestly, as fun as houserules can be, I'm pretty sure the majority of people here (not to mention Paizo) want as functional and appealing game as they can get out of the box without just shrugging their shoulders and just say "the mod community/house rules will fix it"

[MER-c]

The point is making it so that what houserules are needed are those that enhance the game, not just make it playable, a problem Pathfinder in it's later years has to a pretty large extent, if you have a system in place that provides a solid framework that itself functions with minimal DM intervention then the house rules that come up need only adjust for table playstyle and preference rather than rules needed to just make a game play. Thus it is worth our time to bicker and rant and beat the rules to a bloody pulp so that in the end we don't have to houserule as much stuff, as great fun as it is to make up rules on the fly, it's not practical to do so over a large course of games.

[Anguish]

The DM of wrote:

Permanent negative status effects ARE awful. Everyone agrees on that.

Excuse me? Is this some sort of sarcasm or parody you're doing? 'Cuz I don't get the joke.

[Tarik Blackhands]

Anguish wrote:

The DM of wrote:

Permanent negative status effects ARE awful. Everyone agrees on that.

Excuse me? Is this some sort of sarcasm or parody you're doing? 'Cuz I don't get the joke.

As in, getting hit with a permanent status effect sucks since...well it's hugely debilitating on your character. Everyone's in agreement about that. Rub is how much the players themselves tolerate that happening.

[MaxAstro]

I think The DM Of is less saying "oh just houserule it" and more saying that the chance of Paizo deciding to remove permanent negative status effects from the system is effectively nil.

[Barnabas Eckleworth III]

Agreed. Discussion has been discussed out.

[Anguish]

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Everyone's in agreement about that.

Oh. So you're not kidding. You're just making stuff up. Got it.

[The DM of]

We're just having fun with words and trying to kill off a dead horse thread, Anguish ya crank. Lighten up and merry christmas! :)

[Anguish]

The DM of wrote:

We're just having fun with words and trying to kill off a dead horse thread, Anguish ya crank. Lighten up and merry christmas! :)

Oh. Again.

My apologies. The whole PF2 playtest has my sense of humour somewhat impaired. It's just one disagreement after another and I'm rather sensitive to calls to remove abilities that do things from the game. "Paralysis" being turned into "slow down a little bit" is just one of many such changes that depresses me.

[MER-c]

The DM of wrote:

We're just having fun with words and trying to kill off a dead horse thread, Anguish ya crank. Lighten up and merry christmas! :)

At this point I'm somewhere between "Meme the ever living daylights out of potentially toxic threads" and, "Sit back, grab a blanket, and watch Thread Explosions 2: Return of the angry internet people" Most of the time I land on

"Throw out a snarky comment, try say something that has actual value, then watch with satisfaction as all my valid points are ignored because of a little snark"

[Ninja in the Rye]

MaxAstro wrote:

I think The DM Of is less saying "oh just houserule it" and more saying that the chance of Paizo deciding to remove permanent negative status effects from the system is effectively nil.

I don't know that I should even bother to repeat myself on this at this point, but once again I'm not asking for the complete removal of permanent negative effects. I'm saying that they're terrible and, accordingly, that I'm against the ones that effectively remove a player completely from the game AND require only a single critical fail on a save.

Something as simple as say, paralysis/stone/whatever for 2 rounds then give another save against the effect becoming permanent would, at the least, give a second chance AND be more in keeping with the double/increase by an extra step on a critical paradigm we see elsewhere in the rules while still leaving the possibility of eternal Negative effects in the game.

[MaxAstro]

Yes, I am aware. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my post.

Single-crit-fail-death-or-incapacitation is what I mean to say I don't see any chance of Paizo removing. It's a sacred cow for a lot of people, so they are much more likely to reduce the threat of such things by adding more ways to undo or counter them than they are to remove them from the game.

[Captain Morgan]

MaxAstro wrote:

Unheroic, but completely logical and a serious problem with the hero point system as it stands.

Eh, I think hero points resetting every session really curtails the "wait to use it in case I need it later" thing. I mean, someone might be the sort of person who hoards them despite that, but I am hesitant to call it completely logical.

[Edge93]

So, here's my take on single-failure doomy effects.

Just like anything else, they are a GM tool.

A GM isn't going to accidentally hit you with an effect that can permanently (Until cured) hamper you. They do it because they feel the monster at hand should be using an ability that poses the risk of lasting consequence in that moment.

If a GM dislikes these kinds of effects and they exist, they are always going to find something better for the Lich to do than use Paralyzing Toch (Not hard to do). Or the enemy caster will pick a spell other than Disintegrate. Etc. Or the GM will modify them to have a less debilitating effect. (The latter may not be possible in PFS but the former sure as heck is)

If the GM does like these effects but now they don't exist, they will likely either add them in somehow or they will put in the legwork to try to emulate that same level of threat in another way. (Again, the former may not be PFS-able but the latter is. I assume. Never actually done PFS)

This is why I can't advocate for removing such effects personally. It's a use it if you want it, don't if you don't. And for things like that I feel it's best to leave it in because it's easier to have it and not use it, than to want it and not have it. No skin off the nose if you keep it, extra work if you don't.

Now if we are making the argument "What about players who don't want these effects used on them?", that's an entirely different can that frankly has little to do with one-crit-fail-doom effects.

If you hate these kind of effects and it ruins your enjoyment and the GM insists on using them anyway, then that GM is probably out for your hide and frankly removing these effects would be scant consolation because a determined GM can EASILY find other ways to f*** you over if that is their intent.

TL;DR I'm for these effects staying because if they are removed it is extra work for those who want them to exist and if they stay it should never come into play for those who hate them existing UNLESS you are playing with a GM who is probably going to screw you over regardless.

[Ninja in the Rye]

Edge93 wrote:

TL;DR I'm for these effects staying because if they are removed it is extra work for those who want them to exist and if they stay it should never come into play for those who hate them existing UNLESS you are playing with a GM who is probably going to screw you over regardless.

A GM who is running monsters/abilities by the book and having them use the abilities the professional game designers gave them is just going to screw you over regardless? That's quite a leap.

I'm also not sure how it's any more difficult to add such abilities into the game than it is to take them out?

[MaxAstro]

Edge is saying that if you have expressed a distaste for those effects and talked with your GM about not including them, only a bad GM is going to not at least come to a compromise with you.

EDIT: Also, your second statement makes no sense. Adding new things to a game is vastly harder than removing them, because creating balanced game elements is hard. Otherwise why would Paizo even have jobs?

I mean, which of these is harder:

A) Saying that goblins don't exist in your setting.

B) Designing stat blocks, ecologies, and cultures for goblins from scratch and fitting them into your setting.