A Rift in Our Group - "Quickness" and "Deflection" Spells are Ruining Savage Worlds' Combat

innerdude · Dec 6, 2013

scourger said:
Yeah, I just looked in my Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition and Quickness gives an extra action - not another whole turn. And Deflection seems to act like armor. So, what you have is a mage emulating a fighter with a 2-weapon build (Ambidexterity and Two-Fisted) and light to heavy armor. It shouldn't be that unbalanced, and it does not give him 2 whole turns with 4 attacks and two movements.

Also, make sure he is paying the casting and maintenance costs to keep those powers going. Does he have the minimum strength to wield those weapons? I think you need to audit his character & play, not change the rules.

Yep, I just verified --- Quickness underwent a revision from Explorer's Edition to Deluxe. I don't think I'd have a problem with the EE version.

As far as Deflection, I'm considering setting it up so that the parry bonus and the dodge / area effect bonuses are separate trappings. Meaning, depending on the trapping, the character receives one or the other, but not both.

Jan van Leyden · Dec 6, 2013

innerdude said:
Now major caveat here: the player in question is literally my best friend on the planet. We've known each other for 20 years.

...

And we're maybe 6 to 8 sessions away from the campaign's climax, but it's been so bad the last three sessions, that I honestly would rather end the campaign now than keep having to deal with this.

Why not discuss it with your friend and not arguing with rules, but with the campaign: "See, I want to bring this campaign to a satisfying conclusion in the near future. Currently combat irks me because of your spells. I'd like to cut back on your character's combat power in order to make combats more interesting for the other players, too. Especially with the big finale coming up."

You could propose that you nerf the spells a bit (EE version) and set up a more level playing field for the finale (designing the fight in a way that his favourite tactic doesn't work).

amerigoV · Dec 6, 2013

scourger said:
Yeah, I just looked in my Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition and Quickness gives an extra action - not another whole turn. And Deflection seems to act like armor. So, what you have is a mage emulating a fighter with a 2-weapon build (Ambidexterity and Two-Fisted) and light to heavy armor. It shouldn't be that unbalanced, and it does not give him 2 whole turns with 4 attacks and two movements.

(ok - someone else got to this first

)
There is a change between Explorer's Edition and Deluxe (the current). Explorer's did provided an extra action. Deluxe says you get a whole separate turn (and turn 1 has to be done completely before doing turn 2). So the final ruling will depend on what set of rules guides the game

(for example if using Explorers, then you cannot cast two spells in the same round - you can only do the same Action once per turn. But with two turns, you can do the same action twice.

amerigoV · Dec 6, 2013

innerdude said:
Thanks all, these are some very good ideas for countering some of the effects.

I guess part of me is just depressed that I'm having to do it all, to a degree.

I would look at it as forcing him to evolve his tactics. Players should not be running their PCs the same all the time.

Besides, you should be rejoicing - think how many times D&D tried to make a fighter/mage and failed (PrCs, specialty classes, etc) and SW does it effectively and effortlessly (and dangerously).

The other thing is to tailor a few encounters to this build. Say he mows through 10 Extras with this build - is their anything wrong with that? He does not get any extra XP (like in 3.x or 4e) but he gets to feel good about the cool PC he built. (Or those 10 Extras are going to murderize him via Gang Up and Wild Attack :devil:

)

Umbran · Dec 6, 2013

amerigoV said:
(ok - someone else got to this first )
There is a change between Explorer's Edition and Deluxe (the current). Explorer's did provided an extra action. Deluxe says you get a whole separate turn (and turn 1 has to be done completely before doing turn 2). So the final ruling will depend on what set of rules guides the game

(for example if using Explorers, then you cannot cast two spells in the same round - you can only do the same Action once per turn. But with two turns, you can do the same action twice.

Question: Do you pay upkeep for powers by the turn? If that is so, if you get a whole extra turn, you're paying extra upkeep, and the setup gets expensive quickly, which could be a useful limitation.

amerigoV · Dec 6, 2013

Umbran said:
Question: Do you pay upkeep for powers by the turn? If that is so, if you get a whole extra turn, you're paying extra upkeep, and the setup gets expensive quickly, which could be a useful limitation.

Its per initiative round, unless you create trappings otherwise (I saw that question earlier on PEG's board when I saw this thread). You might create trappings in this manner in exchange for something "extra" for the spell. But by the book, it would last the normal amount of time.

Enkhidu · Dec 6, 2013

One of the table-policies I've adhered to over the years is respecting Mutually Assured Destruction. For example, I don't make baddies Scry/Buff/Teleport, or cast Disjunction, or equally nasty combinations unless the players cut loose with it first (after which it's fair game).

Have you thought about using an enemy (a rival, perhaps?) utilizing exactly the same combination?

Aenghus · Dec 6, 2013

When the Haste spell changed in 3.0 D&D, it granted an extra action, which allowed spellcasting, which made it far more broken for spellcasters than non-spellcasters. Indeed, lots of NPC spellcaster BBEGs had it as one of their spells. It was close to a mandatory choice for those PCs who could make it, which is one definition of broken. And 3.0 spellcasters didn't need a further boost over non-spellcasters.

I was very happy to see the revision of the spell in 3.5, which changed it back to a non-spellcaster attack buff like it was in 1e and 2e. The affected players were less happy to have their spellcasters nerfed, but accepted it as it applied to NPCs as well, and double-casting spellcasters are deadly. But the lack of balance in 2e and 3e meant that the option for DM intervention for rebalancing purposes was a regrettable necessity IMO.

Action economy improving features are easy to get wrong, and tinkering with well-established PCs is a difficult issue. A fix can change a PC from brokenly good to average or worse than average, which is a severe problem if the player highly values system mastery, as seems to be the case here. So a rules fix may be more palatable with permission for other PC changes to compensate, even a complete rebuild, or introducing a new PC.

TarionzCousin · Dec 6, 2013

innerdude said:
Thanks all, these are some very good ideas for countering some of the effects.

I guess part of me is just depressed that I'm having to do it all, to a degree.

It's a by-product of different approaches to gaming. Some people absolutely want to min/max their characters. That is something they truly enjoy about gaming. For the rest of us, we either have to deal with it or find new friends with whom we can game.

Enkhidu said:
One of the table-policies I've adhered to over the years is respecting Mutually Assured Destruction. For example, I don't make baddies Scry/Buff/Teleport, or cast Disjunction, or equally nasty combinations unless the players cut loose with it first (after which it's fair game).

Have you thought about using an enemy (a rival, perhaps?) utilizing exactly the same combination?

Way, way back during 2E, I moved back to my hometown to discover an ongoing game in which one of the players had manipulated the house rules on weapons quite a bit. In short, his PC had a pike (reach=attack first) and a whip. He always got in the first attack and then disarmed his enemy to use that weapon.

When I ran the group for a session, I had five NPC villains show up with pikes and whips. They stole all of the PC's weapons and ran off. The player in question retired that PC before the next session. After that, nobody used the pike/whip combo ever again. B-)

Radiating Gnome · Dec 6, 2013

I'd consider, for one thing, having a couple of opponents turn up using the exact same tactics/spells on the party -- after all, if it's that effective, it's not likely to remain a secret for long.

And the ongoing cost of maintaining those spells (3/round total) means that he can't keep the spells up indefinitely. Clever opponents will use waves of mooks to bleed away those power points before coming out to face the players once their spell points are gone.

I'd be tempted to introduce a recurring villain who can start to shape some interesting tactics against the party -- an excuse, really, for opposition that learns and adapts. They might resort to environmental hazards to try to weaken the party, too -- and to use the party's natural foolhardiness to trap them in deadly situations.

-rg

A Rift in Our Group - "Quickness" and "Deflection" Spells are Ruining Savage Worlds' Combat

innerdude

Legend

Jan van Leyden

Adventurer

amerigoV

Guest

amerigoV

Guest

Umbran

Mod Squad

amerigoV

Guest

Enkhidu

Explorer

Aenghus

Explorer

TarionzCousin

Second Most Angelic Devil Ever

Radiating Gnome

Adventurer

Similar Threads