Depends on the kind of game you're running, and what kind of game the players THINK you're running. "Fair" is a bit of a loaded concept; I throw my players into unfair situations all the time. "What's fun" is what matters. I wouldn't just drop something obscure-ish that has instant death abilities on the players without at least attempting to give them a chance to be informed, but if you're running a very simulationist game and the players know that, you might want to. It might even be what THEY want. If that's not the case, well all I can tell you is that personally, I try to avoid things that take a player out of the game unless I have something else for them to do (they meet an NPC's ghost while dead) or I know they're going to be back in it quickly. I try to kill players in big climactic battles where I know they're going to have a cleanup phase right away, but that's just me.
If you're going to use monsters with a lot of instant loss or death stuff, I'd say you should try to at least foreshadow it, or give your players some indication that they should do some research. Videogames will have NPCs blurt stuff out, but we can have the guy who hires the party to clear out a vampire den be like "hey there's a whole section on vampires at the local library," or even tell them that he expects them to do some research as part of the job so the town doesn't have to deal with a reinfestation. Or whatever suits your game.
It's all part of the game.
Players don't think twice about using save or die spells against the enemies... why would the enemy hold back out of some misguided sense of fairness or pity?
Nuke 'em.
If they survive, nuke them again.
Not really... I don't use a lot of save or suck spells for my NPC's. There are blasters and stuff like that, but very few casters I use for enemies are set up for save or die spells. I did unleash an Implacable Stalker Nightmare Lord Bogeymen on the party once, though.
I had never used Quickened Phantasmal Killer before. Probably won't ever use it again, either.
Edit:
The campaign I am currently running is coming up on its final battle. The BBEG is a Mystic Theurge that can blend two spells from different lists into one terrifying effect. I have absolutely no idea what to use with this ability, because I don't like save or die type encounters.
But it is an ability that they already gave the BBEG... it would be a shame if I didn't use it. I will probably just mix some fun damage spells, start the encounter with massive damage to set them back on their heels a bit.
Massive damage is something I am comfortable doing to the party. Save or suck spells have never been something I like, no matter what side is using them. I am usually a big dumb Fighter type, so I always want to charge up and smash stuff. Stupid spellcasters ending the fight before my pathetic initiative comes around.
The game it's not for Only the player to have fun also the GM must have fun to.
The GM must act in my opinion as an offplayer an make the best to show the player what weakness they have and what to need to improve and the only solution is play like a player vs the PC
There once a time that the player (including me) enter the coliseum of sembia ( faerum) to gain Fame ( and money) and the gladiator smashed our paladin when the player ask to lower the cr the gm respond " dud it's like real life, if you want something good prepare yourself better"
Aboleth's lung isn't really a save or die. Anyone with a waterskin can potentially stave off the effects. If your whole party lacks spellcraft to identify what was cast, then the death really is on them though. It's still kind of mean.
That's actually kind of funny. Now I want to use Aboleth's Lung in my next battle.
If I can manage to kill a level 18-19 character with a 2nd level spell, I don't think there's anything mean about that... that's just plain funny.
Choke! Choke! Choke on your incompetence!
basically the entire party is a bunch of melee fighters
It's up to the GM to decide whether this is the sort of game where people can play whatever they want and still have a good time, or the sort where they're expected to create a balanced group (even if that means someone has to play the Cleric when no-one wants to).
If it's the latter kind, then the players ought to be warned of that during Session Zero. ("We're playing through a published module and I'm not going to waste my spare time rewriting it to compensate for your failures.")
If the game is already going, then you have to identify what level of attachment the players have to their characters. If they're the sort of people who will walk out on the group if they die as a result of a single bad dice roll, then you might want to go easy on them.
Typically, losing a character at level two isn't that bad, because there hasn't been enough time to build up much attachment. And losing a character at level ten isn't that bad, because you can probably just pay someone to bring them back to life if you care that much. But there's a point in between where players may be pretty upset.
Anyone with a waterskin can potentially stave off the effects.
Anyone got a waterskin? No? Then quick, everyone pee into this bucket!
Anyone with a waterskin can potentially stave off the effects.Anyone got a waterskin? No? Then quick, everyone pee into this bucket!
Lol
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example Aboleths lung. If that was cast on one of them in an environment with no water and the party isn't super balanced so there really isn't anyone they have that can dispel the spell.
It's a gillmen racial spell. That doesn't mean it can't ever be cast by anything else, but the race is "reclusive and suspicious", so they are unlikely to teach their spells to others. Since gillmen can't go for more than a day without fully submerging themself in water, you wouldn't see them "in an environment with no water".
basically a "Save or die" situation. Is that cheap to do or is it alright to do something like that?
Depends on what you all agreed to play. The default in Pathfinder is that the PCs are heroes. They are supposed to be the 1% who survive almost everything. "In this game, your character can become a master swordsman who has never lost a duel" CRB pg. 5
Quite frankly, yes, I think using such spells is unfair and even mean (towards the players). I don't know your players, but for many people, their characters aren't just "character #15". People put hours into building their character, inventing a backstory, and developing a personality. Making all that work wasted two sessions in because you pull out the nastiest 2nd level spell you can find (while ignoring it's limitations!) would make me feel pissed off, to be honest.
Unless the game is agreed on to be mortally dangerous, PC deaths ruin fun. Unless the player can instantaneously insert a back-up character (at which point you shouldn't be surprised if the players lose any connection to their characters and stop pretty much any roleplaying), the character will sit out a big part of the session, unable to participate.
No one at the table should ever do something that predictably and needlessly ruins other people's fun. I think that's somewhat of the golden rule ot TTRPG. Whatever a GM does should result in people (the GM included!) having fun. One should never forget the difference between GM and players, however, namely that something that drastically affects the PCs also affects the players, while e.g. killing an NPC/monster may affect the GM's planned story, but never has even remotely as much impact on the GM.
I figure if one of them dies it's going to give them a chance to make a more balanced party (It's my fault for not doing a better job at trying to prevent something like this at the beginning but basically the entire party is a bunch of melee fighters, some of which can cast weird variants of spells. We have no healers, ranged fighters, or AOE dealers.).
Hold it, hold it. What the party composition looks like is not the GM's business. Why don't you let them play what they decided to play? You don't need a ranged combatant to make a functional Pathfinder party. You don't need an AoE-capable character to make a functional Pathfinder party. You don't need a dedicated healer to make a functional Pathfinder party. I doubt no one can use a wand of either CLW or Infernal Healing.
Seriously, let the players play what they want. Yes, the party will probably struggle in situations where other parties would breeze through (and probably excel in situations where other parties would struggle). But that's where the fun lies! Overcoming challenges with our characters is literally the reason we play this game. Such a party is likely more fun to play in than your seen-it-a-million-times "arcane full caster, divine full caster, 2 martials/gishs" setup. COnditions turning from "let's take a 15min break while the Cleric prepares Remove X in an empty spellslot" to "we need to get to a town with an NPC spellcaster ASAP" - that's not a bug, that's a feature! And as a GM myself, such things make my job a whole lot easier, because the plots basically write themself that way. Not needing to work against the trivialize-any-challenge ability of a (prepared) full caster is a boon for a GM, not a hindrance.Players don't think twice about using save or die spells against the enemies... why would the enemy hold back out of some misguided sense of fairness or pity?
It's not the enemy who should hold back. It's the GM. Because your average campaing includes 4 PCs and hundreds of monsters - the sides simply aren't equal. The CR system as described in the CRB doesn't even go up towards a fair fight (which would be CR = APL+4 for a regular group). Every fight is supposed to be stacked in favor of the PCs (with the possible exception of the very last one).
Against players? I dunno, how do you feel about a murder charge?
OK, OK, against PCs. It depends on the expectations. Some people hate losing their characters, some hate you holding back too much and want a challenge. I'd lean towards not doing something the party couldn't oppose, but you'll know your players better than me.
Whether the party could easily go to somewhere they could get the character raised (i.e. without the player losing too much time) and whether they could afford a raise dead is also a consideration.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to die 20 or more time in my game and learn how to improve my pc, than winning always an get bored to play
I think it largely depends on the groups level and resources. If they have lots of ways to overcome challenges, are high level, rolling in the coin, then yeah, throw a save or die every combat with no problem.*
If they have no way to overcome such obstacles however, I'd leave them as a rarity and only use them to build a story around
*the highest level game I ran ended at 20th with all the characters possessing artifacts essentially and culminated in a huge war between dwarves and drow, giants and white dragons (the DnD mini game had recently came out and I wanted to run this huge battle, so I did), PCs end up on a mountain facing off against the champions of the opposing army; THE high priestess of Lloth, an Ancient Wyrm White Dragon and a Frost Giant Jarl. Jarl wins initiative and takes a swing at the parties fighter with her vorpal great axe, crit, dead fighter. Fighter throws a hissy essentially, calling the weapon cheesy, cheap, etc. I just hold up my hand and tell him to hold the rage for a moment and then point to the parties Cleric who is next to go. He casts True Resurrection on the fighter, bringing him to a better state than what he started the fight in. I then turned to the fighter's player and then said; "See? Death is absurdly meaningless in high level play" "Oh, and now we're back around to the top of the initiative. *rolls Nat 20*, and looks like you're dead again. Cleric?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spells like Aboleth's Lung and Skinsend were never intended to be weaponized.
I keep a gentleman's agreement with my players. If they don't attempt to weaponize spells like this, I won't weaponize them against the players.
Spells like Aboleth's Lung and Skinsend were never intended to be weaponized.
I keep a gentleman's agreement with my players. If they don't attempt to weaponize spells like this, I won't weaponize them against the players.
If they didn't want Skinsend to be weaponized, they shouldn't have given it to the Alchemist and invented the Syringe Spear. Lol.
The greatest game I ever played in d&d was an epic 32 but conversion creatures from magic the gathering invasion block.
Dominaría exploded and only the wizard survive (she was a plane walker) me and the rest die but we kill Tsabo tavoc
Spells like Aboleth's Lung and Skinsend were never intended to be weaponized.
I keep a gentleman's agreement with my players. If they don't attempt to weaponize spells like this, I won't weaponize them against the players.
As a player, i only like to weaponize things like that when it becomes clear that the gm has been tinkering with things to amp up the difficulty a little higher than the newer players in the group are comfortable with. If the gm takes the gloves off, i do too.
If players have a 100 percent chance to win until the last fight, they're missing the point of what the game is, and it's accepting the element of risk at the same time as playing.
Not what I said. "Stacked in your favor" does not mean "guaranteed to win".
What the OP describes isn't difficulty, it's russian roulette.
Contrary to some other comments, I think the GM does have the right to shape a party. What if a party has no healers? I don't mean no clerics or oracles, but nobody who could use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds? You might have a problem.
Depends on the type of game. I could just let the group find a custom magic item with limited healing ability per day (possibly scaling with level), or I could let the players find a solution of their own (e.g. UMD). When I announced that my campaign would not contain healing wands, one of my players picked up the Healer's Hands feat, even though I made it clear that a custom magic item would pop up soon enough to take care of the main healing needs.
For the record, 21 out of the 40 classes in the game can use a wand of CLW and/or IH by default.
GMs can shape a party so that you don't have a paladin and a chaotic evil assassin in the same party too. GMs can ban classic summoners or other classes, and can ban certain items or certain spells.
Once again, not what I said. Alignment doesn't have anything to do with "party composition" (not in the way I meant it - I was clearly talking about builds/classes). Dito for banning anything - that's affecting the PCs themself, not the party composition.
Something to remember is that Pathfinder actually removed most "save or die" spells from the game. Phantasmal Killer and Suffocation allow multiple saves. Bloatbomb, Cloudkill, Circle of Death, Explode Head, Holy Word et al., Symbol of Death, Death Clutch, and Power Word Kill only outright kill you if you're fighting something you have no chance of winning against anyway. Spells like Slay Living, Curse of Unexpected Death, or Finger of Death only do damage despite their name.
Aboleth's Lung is a spell that's not supposed to exist away from water - it's only ignoring that limitation that makes the spell unfair.
If players have a 100 percent chance to win until the last fight, they're missing the point of what the game is, and it's accepting the element of risk at the same time as playing.Not what I said. "Stacked in your favor" does not mean "guaranteed to win".
What the OP describes isn't difficulty, it's russian roulette.
Contrary to some other comments, I think the GM does have the right to shape a party. What if a party has no healers? I don't mean no clerics or oracles, but nobody who could use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds? You might have a problem.Depends on the type of game. I could just let the group find a custom magic item with limited healing ability per day (possibly scaling with level), or I could let the players find a solution of their own (e.g. UMD). When I announced that my campaign would not contain healing wands, one of my players picked up the Healer's Hands feat, even though I made it clear that a custom magic item would pop up soon enough to take care of the main healing needs.
For the record, 21 out of the 40 classes in the game can use a wand of CLW and/or IH by default.
GMs can shape a party so that you don't have a paladin and a chaotic evil assassin in the same party too. GMs can ban classic summoners or other classes, and can ban certain items or certain spells.Once again, not what I said. Alignment doesn't have anything to do with "party composition" (not in the way I meant it - I was clearly talking about builds/classes). Dito for banning anything - that's affecting the PCs themself, not the party composition.
Something to remember is that Pathfinder actually removed most "save or die" spells from the game. Phantasmal Killer and Suffocation allow multiple saves. Bloatbomb, Cloudkill, Circle of Death, Explode Head, Holy Word et al., Symbol of Death, Death Clutch, and Power Word Kill only outright kill you if...
Its also a strong argument to keep secret spells within the group they're supposed to be secret for.
Frankly i think it makes for a better setting if there are certain groups and cultures who hoard their secret magic and hunt down outsiders who try to steal it.
If they didn't want Skinsend to be weaponized, they shouldn't have given it to the Alchemist and invented the Syringe Spear. Lol.Spells like Aboleth's Lung and Skinsend were never intended to be weaponized.
I keep a gentleman's agreement with my players. If they don't attempt to weaponize spells like this, I won't weaponize them against the players.
You are right.
Should you ever play in one of my games, your characters will be hit with it repeatedly.
I am sure you will enjoy all the no-save deaths.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they didn't want Skinsend to be weaponized, they shouldn't have given it to the Alchemist and invented the Syringe Spear. Lol.Spells like Aboleth's Lung and Skinsend were never intended to be weaponized.
I keep a gentleman's agreement with my players. If they don't attempt to weaponize spells like this, I won't weaponize them against the players.
You are right.
Should you ever play in one of my games, your characters will be hit with it repeatedly.
I am sure you will enjoy all the no-save deaths.
Why not just get some sahuagin with M107 Sniper Rifles? :D
Why not just get some sahuagin with M107 Sniper Rifles? :DIf they didn't want Skinsend to be weaponized, they shouldn't have given it to the Alchemist and invented the Syringe Spear. Lol.Spells like Aboleth's Lung and Skinsend were never intended to be weaponized.
I keep a gentleman's agreement with my players. If they don't attempt to weaponize spells like this, I won't weaponize them against the players.
You are right.
Should you ever play in one of my games, your characters will be hit with it repeatedly.
I am sure you will enjoy all the no-save deaths.
Because the PCs will invariably kill the sahuagin and now the PCs have M107 rifles? And you know the first thing they'll do is begin replicating them?
Skinsend in a Syringe Spear allows a Fortitude save. It's more hilarious than overpowered.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the PCs will invariably kill the sahuagin and now the PCs have M107 rifles? And you know the first thing they'll do is begin replicating them?Why not just get some sahuagin with M107 Sniper Rifles? :DIf they didn't want Skinsend to be weaponized, they shouldn't have given it to the Alchemist and invented the Syringe Spear. Lol.Spells like Aboleth's Lung and Skinsend were never intended to be weaponized.
I keep a gentleman's agreement with my players. If they don't attempt to weaponize spells like this, I won't weaponize them against the players.
You are right.
Should you ever play in one of my games, your characters will be hit with it repeatedly.
I am sure you will enjoy all the no-save deaths.
Games blowing up due to an escalating arms race between the GM and players are the best games. So much beautiful catastrophe that could be averted so easily :)
Games blowing up due to an escalating arms race between the GM and players are the best games. So much beautiful catastrophe that could be averted so easily :)Because the PCs will invariably kill the sahuagin and now the PCs have M107 rifles? And you know the first thing they'll do is begin replicating them?Why not just get some sahuagin with M107 Sniper Rifles? :DIf they didn't want Skinsend to be weaponized, they shouldn't have given it to the Alchemist and invented the Syringe Spear. Lol.Spells like Aboleth's Lung and Skinsend were never intended to be weaponized.
I keep a gentleman's agreement with my players. If they don't attempt to weaponize spells like this, I won't weaponize them against the players.
You are right.
Should you ever play in one of my games, your characters will be hit with it repeatedly.
I am sure you will enjoy all the no-save deaths.
Why would we want to avert that?
|
|
There was a post not too long ago about a Phoenix Down problem where a party forgot that they had many key items to help solve their problems. Is this an extension of that?
I recently hit a player with Feeble Mind which took him out of the fight. An inconvenience that had to be overcome by having to find a Heal scroll. At certain levels where raise dead doesn’t bankrupt the party, character death is similar, and later, death by Power Word Kill is the next extension of that.
On the other hand another player the session before that failed his saves against Phantasmal Killer and died from fear of finding an empty treasure chest. That left the player a little bit upset.
By GM intervention, there could be a scroll of raise dead or the material components in the next room (or there could have been one in the room before if I expected him to fail his saves), which I think would have alleviated some frustrations. Maybe I would do that once or twice or maybe not. I think it would depend on the player’s reaction, but I would not completely avoid spells like that before I know what their reaction would be.
Skinsend in a Syringe Spear allows a Fortitude save. It's more hilarious than overpowered.
I have been unable to locate anything that would give a save vs. this spell.
The spell itself does not give a save and neither the Infusion discovery nor the Syringe Spears mention saves.
I'm not sure how to apply a saving through to skinsend myself either. Though I also can't figure out how you're turning an infusion into an injectable in the first place. The only method I can find is via "touch injection" which explicitly adds both a save and spell resistance to personal range infusions delivered via touch.
As for the actual question, I like keeping save or die effects around for the purpose of telagraphing enemy ability somewhat. If the players face these effects all the time, then they prepare for them and can be essentially immune. If the players face them rarely, then they tend to ignore them and get wiped out when they appear. Telegraphing save or die effects lets the player see the danger in the encounter, and forces them to do some investigation where they may typically charge ahead and miss other clues that are relevant to the plot.
Using them as a "surprise, you're dead" effect is pretty lame. "players do this too!" is a reasonable criticism, but since that's also considered somewhat undesirable, it's not really a defense as much as a reminder to check how save or die effects influence both sides of the table.
I'm not sure how to apply a saving through to skinsend myself either. Though I also can't figure out how you're turning an infusion into an injectable in the first place.
I can see those two parts of the equation, but what's the step that changes the imbibed infusion to an injected infusion. The only rule I can find similar to that is either the touch injection spell, or potions used in a battle cauldron.
if a PC can one shot a BBEG why should the same risk not apply to them?
It's pathetic and anticlimactic when a major enemy is one-shotted. It's probably even worse when it happens to one of the main characters.
I completely agree that the use of save or suck spells should be used to project the enemy ability, more than a tool to directly attempt to kill the party.
I made the mistake of surprising the party with the Implacable Stalker Nightmare Lord Bogeymen and he dropped one of them with a Quickened Phantasmal Killer right away. I hadn't been using these sorts of spells before, and the party didn't really have any way to prepare for such an encounter only having seen him, but not fought him, once before. Needless to say, I retired him from this campaign to be used in a more appropriate environment later. He is wonderful, just not without proper introduction.
As for the Injection Spear and Skinsend, there was a FAQ about allowing Fortitude saves, or designer input on the forums, maybe... I came across it related to this very topic, but I can't find it now. Anyways, there's two versions of the spear:
"The first is the Syringe Spear from Adventurer's Armory.
100g. 1d8, x3, 20ft Range, Martial Weapon. "Typically" injects a poison. Takes 1 minute to refill.
The second one is from way back, a year earlier than Adventurer's Armory.
The Injection Spear from Classic Horrors Revisited.
60g. 1d8, x3. No Range, Exotic Weapon. Can store up to 5 doses of poisons, drugs, or potions. Must be proficient in it to inject doses." -Cao Phen.
A tad overdramatic.....
It's pathetic and anticlimactic when a major enemy is one-shotted. It's probably even worse when it happens to one of the main characters.
It's pretty much keeping with the tone of the post it was responding to.
I can see those two parts of the equation, but what's the step that changes the imbibed infusion to an injected infusion. The only rule I can find similar to that is either the touch injection spell, or potions used in a battle cauldron.
A potion is a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed.
Extracts are the most varied of the three. In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form
An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.
The spear’s reservoir can hold up to 5 doses of a single fluid—a single dose is automatically injected when the spear hits a target.
Infusions behave like potions, which are a magic liquid. Infusion allows extracts to affect others. Injection Spear is more specific than the general rules that require liquids to be imbibed.
Injection spear does not say it alters what happens when the liquid is injected, just that it is injected. The same reasoning would say that an injection spear could be used to deliver poison to a zombie succesfully, since the spear being able to deiver the liquid is more specific than the zombie immunity to poison.
I think a better question might be how often should a spell come up in a way that has no counter? It seems like a abolth lung is usually only going to be cast near water. Having to spend the rest of the combat in nearby water and being almost useless it's pretty bad but it's not the same as you're just dead.
I truly miss the days of Save or Die spells. So many of the spells in Pathfinder have been neutered to the point they're hardly worth using. I personally loved the goosebump-raising feeling of danger when the bad guy was getting ready to cast a spell. A lot of my players do, too. Thus, I have no problem throwing death at them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I truly miss the days of Save or Die spells. So many of the spells in Pathfinder have been neutered to the point they're hardly worth using. I personally loved the goosebump-raising feeling of danger when the bad guy was getting ready to cast a spell. A lot of my players do, too. Thus, I have no problem throwing death at them.
It takes the tension out of high level play since pretty much all threats are packing save or dies. They still exist in droves, they're just not usually instant instant death.
Thanks, Mark! I do use a lot of other ways to make them squirm. There are times, though...