General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I always (90% of the time – it's a campaign running gag) make the Reflex save for my monsters, even when they're giants or some such. So... are the Reflex saves on most monsters too high?
Disclaimer 1: Above all, I am a very silly man. So if a statement of mine can be construed as joke - especially if it's not funny - it likely is.
Disclaimer 2: I am also opinionated, so when not joking I am still voicing my opinion. Except when I am stating facts.
I always (90% of the time – it's a campaign running gag) make the Reflex save for my monsters, even when they're giants or some such. So... are the Reflex saves on most monsters too high?
A well-placed Fireball is still an attractive tactical choice, even if the Magic 8 Ball tells me that every single target will make their Reflex save.
Much, much less true about most Fort save effects.
__________________ Stone Bear thinks, "Ain't no kind of rumbling behind you that issues forth from a kuo-toa city can be a good thing..."
Eve: “Why don’t you have any eyes?”
Stone Bear: “Hungry pets.”
A well-placed Fireball is still an attractive tactical choice...
Generally I've found fireball is only useful for killing things that are so weak they'd die even if they made their save. Once you reach a certain level monsters have so many hit points it's just a drop in the bucket; your good buddy the fighter can do more damage than your fireball.
Generally I've found fireball is only useful for killing things that are so weak they'd die even if they made their save. Once you reach a certain level monsters have so many hit points it's just a drop in the bucket; your good buddy the fighter can do more damage than your fireball.
I find that at higher levels, a good front-end damage spell like fireball can't be counted on to take the targets out, but they are instrumental in softening up a variety of targets. If an oppenent can stand up to two rounds of attacks by a fighter, then the creature invariably gets a full attack on the fighter, which quickly saps the staying power of the tank. But if you put them in striking distance of a one-round kill for the fighter, then the first no attacks and subsequent ones only get a single attack.
Not to mention the synergy with effects of feats like cleave and whirlwind attack.
__________________ "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in your imagination..." - Cover of Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules Set 1.
Some earlier posts in this thread reminded me of this:
Talk was of how there's no way to give monsters lots of h.p. without either jacking up their HD or Con. Well, there is, and it's easy.
Break out h.p. from HD, and from Con. if you like, and just assign an arbitrary amount. So, if you want some monster to save like a 4 HD creature, fight like a 6 HD creature, have Con. 12 for all reasons except h.p., but still have 872 hit points, you can. Yes, the rules don't allow this as written (in fact, they splutter and choke in protest) nor can they explain it...but that's not the point.
I use this when dreaming up Demons, as they're all so randomly different (or should be); I come up with a rough idea of how tough should it be in terms of hit points, fight level, saves, attacks, magic resistance, etc. then roll randomly to see if it's tougher or weaker on each aspect and just assign a value based on that. The fun part is my players never know what to expect when they meet a Demon...
For conventional monsters this works far better in 1e than in 3e as the saves are integrated with so much else in 3e.
Generally I've found fireball is only useful for killing things that are so weak they'd die even if they made their save. Once you reach a certain level monsters have so many hit points it's just a drop in the bucket; your good buddy the fighter can do more damage than your fireball.
It seems you have very much an all-or-nothing here. Either you annihlated the foe, or it's considered ineffectual. It is, in fact, similar to the arguement that Whirlwind Attack sucks.
If you're doing 10d6 with a fireball, that's 35 points of damage, save for 17. Sure, the fighter can beat that output...against a single target. But that's not what an area affect spell like fireball is for. It's also not intended to be a mass save-or-die spell anymore either (granted, that was sort of its original intent though). It's for hurting groups of enemies so that they're easier to polish off with follow-up attacks.
What about weakening tactics, anyway? Granted, I have little experience with using Fort negates spells on monsters (most such spells are harmful necromancy spells, which are a no-no for good-aligned characters IMC), but I have used such spells against PCs. IIRC, enervation goes a long way toward lowering saves, and energy drain even more so. Bestow curse hits the subject with a -4, and it's a Will negates spell. Or is most folks' experience that such tactics are a waste of time/generally unsuccessful?
What about weakening tactics, anyway? Granted, I have little experience with using Fort negates spells on monsters (most such spells are harmful necromancy spells, which are a no-no for good-aligned characters IMC), but I have used such spells against PCs. IIRC, enervation goes a long way toward lowering saves, and energy drain even more so. Bestow curse hits the subject with a -4, and it's a Will negates spell. Or is most folks' experience that such tactics are a waste of time/generally unsuccessful?
"Weakening tactics" are colloquially known to MMOG gamers as "debuffs". The common wisdom is that they are best saved for big bosses who can conceivably TPK the party. For anything less than that, just do damage and kill the bugger.
You do make a good point; if monsters have high saves, then do something to lower them. Use some gosh-darn tactics. If someone just wants to point at any given creature and say "die", and expects there be a good chance of it just keeling over stone dead....well, that guy shouldn't blame the system when that doesn't work. That's not Fort saves being too high, that's expectations being too high.
I"m not real crazy about seeing "save-or-die" being mitigated with "save-and-be-debuffed" effects. Hear my thinking on the matter.
The principal reason it's accepted that a save-or-die spell should be pretty worthless is their potential to short-change a cool encounter with the casting of a single spell in the first round of combat. Here's how I see save-or-dies being used in a manner that most would find acceptable:
1) To eliminate a mook--a monster that doesn't pose a major threat to the party individually, so it's probably part of a pack attack. Not a boss. Of course, at higher levels, even a mook can have too many hit points to be dropped by a charging fighter, so a save-or-die can come in handy.
2) To take down any monster, even a boss, after a few rounds of combat. No DM wants a potentially cool encounter to end unceremoniously, but they don't want them to drag on forever and they often don't really want the party to lose. A well-timed SoD can win the day.
So, here are some options for adjusting save-or-die effects in future books:
Doesn't affect creatures beyond a certain number of hit dice--This makes an effective mook-killer, but bosses will usually have enough hit dice to put them out of danger of being one-shotted, and hit dice isn't something that can be reduced on the spot. I suspect many wouldn't even mind a no-save effect if it was restricted to killing minions.
Hurst first, kills later. The spell's immediate effect is to do some no-save damage or imposes some other effect (like slowing), and forces a save on a subsequent round to avoid death. This is a lousy mook-killer, but can nail tough monsters.
Only kills weak or hurt monsters. Power word kill already works this way, and it could work for other spells as well. The target has to be softened up first, which means the spell is reserved a sort of coup de grace.
I agree with these ideas. I particularly like the hurts first, kills later model. Instead of instant death spells, why not damaging spells that increase over time. For example, 2d6 damage on the first round, 4d6 the second, 6d6 the third, etc, all with save for half. If the caster is high enough level, he IS going to kill the target, but, it's going to take a while to do.
Actually, I wouldn't mind this as a model for most spells. At lower levels, the damage is negated by a save, at higher levels, its not.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
I do not find that the situation we have is unbalanced or unfair -- my best kill spell has ~20% chance of vaporizing the target and ~80% chance of doing nothing. But as a player I think it would be more interesting to have a ~5% chance of nuking the target outright and at least a ~70% chance of some useful even if not spectacular result.
I think that Disintegrate has the right idea. I would many more spells in that direction. Even further than Disintegrate if it were up to me.
__________________ Stone Bear thinks, "Ain't no kind of rumbling behind you that issues forth from a kuo-toa city can be a good thing..."
Eve: “Why don’t you have any eyes?”
Stone Bear: “Hungry pets.”
I'd like to see "save negates" stripped from the game entirely. Every spell should have some effect on a failed save, even if it's far less impressive than the spell would otherwise be. That way, there's no sense in having totally wasted a spell (or a round).
Would you say the same thing about "AC Negates" or "Opposed roll negates" for attacks and special attacks?
Should a failed attack roll or failed Disarm attempt have some effect?
Bearing in mind that hit points are often cited to represent more than simply flesh-and-blood wound resistance, but also luck, combat prowess, divine favour, fatigue, etc.
There is a difference though between a melee attack and a spell. For melee attacks, for most of a character's existence, he can attempt to make more than one attack per round. Secondly, there's no limit to the number of times a given PC can make attacks, unlike casters who have limited spell slots and must choose those slots ahead of time.
Would you like to see fighters forced to take a specific number of trip, disarm and sunder attempts per day in place of a limited number of straight up melee attacks?
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Would you like to see fighters forced to take a specific number of trip, disarm and sunder attempts per day in place of a limited number of straight up melee attacks?
Warlocks have access to Save Negates effects too, and I'd assume Mouseferatu would include those effects in his general revision of Save Negates; those characters are not limited to a certain number of slots per day, and they can select at will from among them at any time.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
