Spells which were not properly nerved...

[Sylrae]

Does it take you 6 seconds to drink a potion?

This question seriously depends on how large we define the standard potion as.
I'm seeing a 6 second potion, as like 3 to 4 mouthfuls around 2 oz. 5 or 6 mouthfuls if im trying to drink it quickly. Assuming a potion goes down like vodka, maybe 3oz per potion.

~
While I can't stand 4e, I AM inclined against Save or Suck. I simply don't think you should be taken out of the game (or have the ability to take someone out of the game) without wearing down someones defenses, or multiple rolls.

(We pulled death by massive damage too, but added in exploding crits).

That being said: simple Save or Suck fix: If you fail your save, you do another save. This time with a -2 penalty (-4 if you think I'm being too generous). Suddenly the Save or Suck spells require an extra save before the suck. And honestly, that's as much of a nerf as I need to make those spells palatable. *shrug*. Also, maybe someone could do the math for me and see how much worse that makes them, and then adjust spell levels accordingly based on how likely they are to kill appropriately powered creatures compared to other kill stuff spells of the same level.

If you want to be easier on them mechanically but sadistic Psychologically, allow them to keep making saves, giving them additional -4 penalties for each one. eventually they either passed it (which gets less and less likely as time goes on and the player gets more and more filled with despair), or they reach a -20 to -23 modifier, and fail it utterly.

For some of the ones that kill you outright, other nerfs exist. Here are two I've seen.
- You're dropped to -1 Hit Points, and bleeding.
- Do a fairly large amount of ability score damage (which CAN kill you)

It's all a matter of how much you mean to nerf them. If you nerf them too much they become either useless or need to be a lower level.

OR!: Use the action point rules in trailbazer. BBEGs and Players will both have them, and in the event of a Save or Suck, they can spend an action point to redo the save, or they can spend it in advance to add a d6 to the save.

I combined Action Points with oWoD's Nature and Demeanor Archetypes, so players regain an Action Points when they successfully do one of like 35 things (and they picked which one will apply to them at character creation based on their character's personality).

Mind you, that doesn't mean that all the spell levels couldnt use some tweaking. Baleful Polymorph is a crazy good level 5 spell, and could probably be bumped to 6 or 7. One time I saw one player polymorph another into a bunny, and then stick him in a bag of holding. Just to be mean. Then he would do things like throw in a house cat for a round or 2. keep the bunny alive and torture him. Nobody knew what was up with the bunny until it was over, and the GM was the kind who let it go on for more than a session.

Personally I'm not a fan of negative levels. Energy Drain, and level loss from being resurrected are crap. This is not a balance/power gripe. This is a "OMG IT SLOWS THINGS DOWN TOO MUCH" gripe.

 

[Psychotic Jim]

Regarding some of the more troublesome instant transformation spells (baleful polymorph, flesh to stone), would it be possible to make them a bit... staged or progressive? By that I mean, instead of casting the spell and *bing* the targets are instantly transformed all at once, the target of such a spell would gradually over a few rounds be transformed. Penalties would steadily accrue as parts of the body would transform.

So like, with flesh to stone, first you might get some dex or movement penalties as your legs would begin to turn to stone, then you might get some attack penalties as your arms begin to petrify, and so on until you're a complete stone statue. Perhaps the caster would have to sustain the spell as a free action, and if he/she lost it, the transformation would stop. A victim of incomplete polymorph/flesh to stone could still suffer the penalties of the incomplete transformation or could revert back to the original form, depending on how the game rules needed to be balanced.

 

[pawsplay]

He'll have to hit you harder in Pathfinder, because they nerfed death by massive damage!

In Pf, he probably can hit you harder.

 

[EroGaki]

Regarding some of the more troublesome instant transformation spells (baleful polymorph, flesh to stone), would it be possible to make them a bit... staged or progressive? By that I mean, instead of casting the spell and *bing* the targets are instantly transformed all at once, the target of such a spell would gradually over a few rounds be transformed. Penalties would steadily accrue as parts of the body would transform.

So like, with flesh to stone, first you might get some dex or movement penalties as your legs would begin to turn to stone, then you might get some attack penalties as your arms begin to petrify, and so on until you're a complete stone statue. Perhaps the caster would have to sustain the spell as a free action, and if he/she lost it, the transformation would stop. A victim of incomplete polymorph/flesh to stone could still suffer the penalties of the incomplete transformation or could revert back to the original form, depending on how the game rules needed to be balanced.

Slow progressive effects are another 4E construct I'd prefer never to exist. If Pathfinder spells became like that, you could get rid of the "save" in "save or suck." Because the spells would just suck.

 

[Voadam]

If NPCs can do something, PCs should be able to do the same thing. Players find that fair and like to turn the tables like that. It also adds to the simulationism of the game.

If the god Appollo is able to foretell the future then pcs should be able to as well for simulationism?

If a medusa can turn you to stone with a gaze and a dragon can breathe poison gas then a PC wizard should be able to do so as well?

Isn't simulation satisfied by using the non human power from its source, i.e. perseus cutting off the medusa's head to use its power against the Kraken.

If you want another argument for it: Not all classes should work the same way, to make the game more interesting. Fighter-types hack away at hit points. Hence the need for classes that can use save-or-dies instead of hack-away attacks.

That's an argument for making varied attack mechanics. Not specifically for save or dies.

High damage single attacks, low damage multiple attacks, ranged versus melee, high accuracy low damage versus high damage and low accuracy, area of effect versus single target, at will versus 1/day versus rechargeable powers, conditional only modifiers, random or modifiable versus stable, are all different mechanics that classes could vary by and still use just hit point attacks.

Even with desiring non-hp attack mechanics you don't have to go with save or die. Attacks that cause penalties, negate magic, attack ability scores, attack spell slots, cause temporary conditions, etc. are all viable options.

I'm looking for the argument that a PC wizard using his normal prepared attack spell to magically bypass hp and one shot the dragon/BBEG is a desirable thing for the game.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

If the god Appollo is able to foretell the future then pcs should be able to as well for simulationism?

If a medusa can turn you to stone with a gaze and a dragon can breathe poison gas then a PC wizard should be able to do so as well?

Isn't simulation satisfied by using the non human power from its source, i.e. perseus cutting off the medusa's head to use its power against the Kraken.

The argument is that the same options should be possible. If a PC attained a high level of god-hood, he should be able to try for Apollo's set of powers. if a PC wanted to make a medusa, he could have the same exact power an NPc medusa would have. And so on... Things without an ECL listed should either be 1) too high an ECL to be playable in a typical game or 2) unplayable due to it's nature; such as not having human-type sentience or control, like a chaos beast or a swarm. Even some demons get a listed LA, implying it's feasible to play them, despite their anarchic and violent tendencies that would likely make it hard for them to fit into an adventuring party, so the "bar" isn't even set particularly high.

It's when in 4E an NPC kobold has different racial abilities than a PC kobold, for example, that gets simulationists upset.

EDIT: There's probably a 3rd category, for things that just have such tremendous or aberrant abilities relative to their HD / hp, that any ECL you could possibly assign them that would be balanced for what they could do, they'd just have no hope of ever surviving an equivalent level challenge. I'll call it "wildly uneven characteristics."

 

[Sylrae]

I'm looking for the argument that a PC wizard using his normal prepared attack spell to magically bypass hp and one shot the dragon/BBEG is a desirable thing for the game.

This is true. Personally, I'd argue that most save or die (or similar effects) could be done either like ability drain, or could be done like wraith touch attack (ability drain that results in a secondary effect, such as turning into a wraith, turning to stone, etc). Then you scale the amount of ability damage to scale the power level... Just a thought. (My spell does 2d8 CON Damage, if youre reduced to 0 or less, youre turned to stone).
And then Drop Energy Drain and replace it with an effect like the above because, well, IME, Level loss effects are like this:

Permanent
Time Drain:
You lose a level. Stop the game for everyone else for 20 minutes while you update your character sheet.

Temporary
Go Calculate what you didn't have before you gained this level. Keep track of that so that we know you don't have it. Again, halt the game for 20 minutes to do so.

The argument is that the same options should be possible. If a PC attained a high level of god-hood, he should be able to try for Apollo's set of powers. if a PC wanted to make a medusa, he could have the same exact power an NPc medusa would have. And so on... Things without an ECL listed should either be 1) too high an ECL to be playable in a typical game or 2) unplayable due to it's nature; such as not having human-type sentience or control, like a chaos beast or a swarm. Even some demons get a listed LA, implying it's feasible to play them, despite their anarchic and violent tendencies that would likely make it hard for them to fit into an adventuring party, so the "bar" isn't even set particularly high.

Even without LAs listed, people will want to play them. You ever see anyone want to play a Dryad Druid? (That's about all they can play with the tree restriction unless youe always in a forest ~ cause then the dryad can animate her tree). Or ever see anyone want to play a demon? a bunch of those don't have listed LAs. Additionally, LA sucks. lol.

If youre going to give the character all of the monster's abilities, my advice, LA = CR.
Change Immunities to resistances in many instances, and change wacky at-will powers to wacky powers with x/day.
You'll have more playable characters.

If you'll do things the harder way, use UK's CR guide to price out the monster at each level. Make a Base Race (0.5-0.7 for PFRPG, or .3-.55 for 3.5e), then list all the abilities they get, and find the prices for them.
Figure out skill points per level, HD per level, Saves, and then start adding HD until you get to a point where you have the abilities spread out enough to have the levels be around the right power level 1.1672/level (not counting base race).

If you're using Trailblazer, you might be well served to convert the SLAs the creature has into a class spell list (and add a few more spells).

It's when in 4E an NPC kobold has different racial abilities than a PC kobold, for example, that gets simulationists upset.

Heh. Yep. Well, I can deal with 'very close, but slightly different'. If someone plays a goblin, I doubt they would object to a small power bump to make them on par with humans, in terms of power. (skill bonuses or something).

 

[Voadam]

The argument is that the same options should be possible. If a PC attained a high level of god-hood, he should be able to try for Apollo's set of powers. if a PC wanted to make a medusa, he could have the same exact power an NPc medusa would have. And so on... Things without an ECL listed should either be 1) too high an ECL to be playable in a typical game or 2) unplayable due to it's nature; such as not having human-type sentience or control, like a chaos beast or a swarm. Even some demons get a listed LA, implying it's feasible to play them, despite their anarchic and violent tendencies that would likely make it hard for them to fit into an adventuring party, so the "bar" isn't even set particularly high.

It's when in 4E an NPC kobold has different racial abilities than a PC kobold, for example, that gets simulationists upset.

EDIT: There's probably a 3rd category, for things that just have such tremendous or aberrant abilities relative to their HD / hp, that any ECL you could possibly assign them that would be balanced for what they could do, they'd just have no hope of ever surviving an equivalent level challenge. I'll call it "wildly uneven characteristics."

Fine, a player who exceeds epic levels and ascends to becomes a god of prophecy should ideally be able to give prophecies like Apollo and if you want to allow PC medusas then there is a desire for them to be full medusas.

I think the relevant focus for our discussion though is on ubiquitous save or die PC spells (things that can be prepared every day by core class human PCs). Pathfinder changes a lot to save each round or save or take a lot of damage. A few are still there though as save or die.

So what are the arguments saying a PC baleful polymorph that can bypass hp and magically one shot a BBEG on a failed save is good for the game?

Some have said in their experience this has been great when it happens, everyone cheered and there was cake.

A contrary viewpoint is that it is anticlimatic for BBEG scenes and puts the save or die casters as the bigshots of the party in terms of power and dramatic effects in combat while marginalizing others as support until the caster gets off their one combat ending spell and their role as handling the scruff so the casters can save the big guns for the important fights.

 

[Mark Chance]

A contrary viewpoint is that it is anticlimatic for BBEG scenes....

That would indeed be anticlimatic, which is why it won't ever happen in a game I'm running. I don't need to change the way spells work to accomplish that goal. I just need to change the way BBEGs work.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

one shotting the BBEG

In my experience, the person who is mostly unsatisfied when the BBEG gets oneshotted is the DM. And since I'm generally the DM, I'm OK with it happening occasionally. The cheering and the cake from my players make up for it!

I think the whole thing about Baleful Polymorph is overblown; FORT saves scale up pretty well on monsters. Glitterdust (which Pathfinder nerfed) was a much bigger problem.

Ken