Epic Fight turns into Epic Farce

[Imaro]

Just because death is less swingy doesn't mean it's less common. Combat can still be very deadly, it just takes more than a single die roll to kill a character.

The 4E math was supposed to make combat less swingy, you're right. But monsters are still nasty. It may take your character three or four rounds to die, instead of one, but he'll still die.

Okay this being said... if you're character is in a room where a bomb will go off...in the first situation you have have 10 seconds to think of a way to get your character out of this situation, while in the other situation you have 5 minutes to think of a way to get your character out of this situation, or even to make a judgement call on how dangerous said position is... doesn't this mean you are in a more safe position than the person with less time to think of something? The Bomb represents the same amount of danger in that it will go off and kill you, but one situation is more dangerous because this happens much more quickly.

 

[wally]

I really want to know the demographics of all of the people who have responded that "save or sit out" effects are okay. What do you do during that time? Is sitting there listening to others play as fun as playing yourself? How often do you play? How long did you travel to play?

As for myself, I play with with people who all have professional full times jobs, most are married, and some have kids. We get one night a week to play for about four hours, maybe four and a half. Some of them travel thirty five minutes to play, so that pushes their time commitment up higher. (I host as the DM.)

I also play in a group that meets perhaps three times a year over a weekend to game. We probably play twelve hours or so.

Anymore in gaming, I dislike "save or sit out" effects because of our group. My players are looking for something fun to do, and they have chosen gaming. To have them have to sit there for more than ten minutes without being involved in the actions is bad. More than that, and it's almost rude. Some of them don't have tons of time and if it isn't fun, they have many other commitments they could do instead. As the DM, I am looking to entertain them. I don't see how sitting there and doing nothing is fun.

Maybe that's just me.

edg

My group is pretty similar with time spent gaming and availability. I don't think that makes it any different than any of the other groups I have gamed with. They all want to have fun in their own ways.

Well, we specifically don't normally run encounters/fights that last for hours of real time. If it is a small fight, and someone is taking too long to decide what they want to do, they get a pass. If you sit out of a fight that takes 10-30 minutes of real time, then live with it. If it happens to you over and over and nobody else, then there is an issue and you need to talk to your DM.

If you are in a really big fight that could take hours of real time, and you get held or feared, then it isn't completely the fault of the DM. You character has fellow characters who could/should be able to defeat said magics or effects. If you can't, then your party needs to think twice about ever attacking such things in the future, and you may want to question why your casters aren't helping out the others in said case. If it is a caster or casters that get held or feared, then you may have a great story to tell to other gamers in the future.

Crap happens, and if you want to remove the possibility of it ever actually happening, then where is the risk, and how do you feel you have accomplished something great if you have no great risk (whether it be from stepping right into the middle of a spell, or having your soul ripped out by a high level spell)?

-wally

 

[Vegepygmy]

I really want to know the demographics of all of the people who have responded that "save or sit out" effects are okay. What do you do during that time? Is sitting there listening to others play as fun as playing yourself? How often do you play? How long did you travel to play?

Currently, I travel about 20-30 minutes to play. In the not too distant past, I traveled an hour. My feelings about "save or sit out" effects were the same in either case: I'm okay with them.

Currently, I play once a week. When I had to travel an hour, I played only once a month. Again, my feelings remained the same.

Sitting there listening to others play is not as much fun as playing myself. I don't consider it (as many seem to do) "sitting there doing nothing," however. Sometimes I use the time to plan what I will do when I get back into the action; sometimes I help other players, or help the DM keep track of things. Sometimes I just watch as events unfold, because although being a spectator isn't as much fun as playing, it's still some fun for me. And more fun than most other things I could be doing with that time.

As for myself, I play with with people who all have professional full times jobs, most are married, and some have kids. We get one night a week to play for about four hours, maybe four and a half. Some of them travel thirty five minutes to play, so that pushes their time commitment up higher. (I host as the DM.)

My situation is nearly identical. I'm an attorney. I'm married. I have kids. I play one night a week for 3-4 hours. I travel 20-30 minutes to play.

Anymore in gaming, I dislike "save or sit out" effects because of our group. My players are looking for something fun to do, and they have chosen gaming. To have them have to sit there for more than ten minutes without being involved in the actions is bad. More than that, and it's almost rude. Some of them don't have tons of time and if it isn't fun, they have many other commitments they could do instead. As the DM, I am looking to entertain them. I don't see how sitting there and doing nothing is fun.

Maybe that's just me.

Not just you (there are obviously many others who feel the same way), but it's definitely a style preference...and not everyone shares it with you. I suspect, in fact, that the number of players like me is, while perhaps a minority, still a very significant minority.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Have fun with what happens, not with what you expect to have happen. Otherwise, why bother rolling dice?

I don't do sigs, but if I did, I'd be using this.

 

[Fifth Element]

The Bomb represents the same amount of danger in that it will go off and kill you, but one situation is more dangerous because this happens much more quickly.

That example is not really applicable as written.

The 10-second bomb could be like save-or-die, but only if there's a good chance that it won't go off at all; that's the successful save. And on the other hand, the 5-minute bomb is almost guaranteed to go off, it's just a matter of when.

Which is "safer"? No way to know. You've got one situation where you might be dead in a second, or you might be completely unharmed. You've got another situation where your life will definitely be in danger, but you have some time to try to work out of it.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Really? Why do you think it is a straw man?

I think this fits the problems of Save or Die spells pretty well. Maybe it is because they remind me of one or two situations I experienced:
- PCs open door. See several Bodaks. Some PC fails one of the several saves he now has to make.
- PCs enter a combat area, see some foes and start attacking. Foes remove a tapestry, revealing a Symbol of Death. Some PCs die.

(Don't know if the second was is actually legal after reading all fine print on the spells - but it appears to me as if the module writer thought it was...)

Most save -vs spells come out by the time the PCs have pretty decent saves against it, and for the classes with high progression in those saves, they only lose on a 1.

In the example, you have to get a twenty not to die. It's the complete opposite of how it typically is, played up for dramatic effect to make the argument seem more meaningful.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Most save -vs spells come out by the time the PCs have pretty decent saves against it, and for the classes with high progression in those saves, they only lose on a 1.

In the example, you have to get a twenty not to die. It's the complete opposite of how it typically is, played up for dramatic effect to make the argument seem more meaningful.

DC 20 != Having to roll a 20.

And may I introduce you to Tyler Codd, my Fighter from Shackled City? Wisdom 8. At Level 12, that meant a Will Save of +3, probably +6 due to a Cloak of Resistance (can't remember exactly now)
Typical Will Save against a save or die spell at that level: 19 (50 % chance to fail the save) for a trap or magical item only, or 22 against a "real" wizard (75 % chance to fail the save). A Cleric of that level with a Wisdom of 22 after magical items and ability increases would have a Will Save +17 (10 % chance to fail the trap save, 20 % chance to fail the save against the wizard)

The difference to the "Spot Check" example is not that big. Of course it's true that skill modifiers vary considerably more then saving throws in 3E.

I could go on success chances (especially introducing monsters like the Dreaded Bodak with his Death Gaze...), but I don't feel it's necessary.

 

[pemerton]

Crap happens, and if you want to remove the possibility of it ever actually happening, then where is the risk, and how do you feel you have accomplished something great if you have no great risk (whether it be from stepping right into the middle of a spell, or having your soul ripped out by a high level spell)?

This seems to conflate game and metagame.

In the gameworld, it might make sense to say that the greatness of PC accomplishment depends upon risks run.

But in the real world I, the player, am not accomplishing anything great. I'm just having fun playing a game. And it makes no sense (to me at least) to say that the funness of my hobbytime depends upon running the risk of not getting to play.

It is quite possible to have RPG mechanics which allow ingame risk to the PCs without metagame risk to the players' fun. 4e is one example of this.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

DC 20 != Having to roll a 20.

And may I introduce you to Tyler Codd, my Fighter from Shackled City? Wisdom 8. At Level 12, that meant a Will Save of +3, probably +6 due to a Cloak of Resistance (can't remember exactly now)
Typical Will Save against a save or die spell at that level: 19 (50 % chance to fail the save) for a trap or magical item only, or 22 against a "real" wizard (75 % chance to fail the save). A Cleric of that level with a Wisdom of 22 after magical items and ability increases would have a Will Save +17 (10 % chance to fail the trap save, 20 % chance to fail the save against the wizard)

The difference to the "Spot Check" example is not that big. Of course it's true that skill modifiers vary considerably more then saving throws in 3E.

I could go on success chances (especially introducing monsters like the Dreaded Bodak with his Death Gaze...), but I don't feel it's necessary.

Yes, your one fighter has a low will save. You cleric on the other hand, as you openly admit, probably WON'T go down to that save or die spell. D&D IS a party game

The example, however, declared "Everyone who doesn't get that 1/20 chance dies." Ironically, it very handily showed how save-or-die spells aren't that rediculous.

 

[Runestar]

Is it possible that in 3e, the designers assumed that you would use spells and other resources at your disposal to get around your weaknesses? And this does not mean just taking iron will and a cloak of resistance. I mean - what do you spend your wealth on?

For example, Underdark has a set of armour which grants persistent mindblank. BOED has soulfire, which grants death ward. Heroes' feast (a 6th lv cleric spell) grants fear/poison immunity. Freedom of movement (available as a 4th lv cleric spell or a ring) makes you immune to grapple and paralysis. If you use tome of battle, any character can nab the diamond mind save boosts with feats (or a wizard can access it at a moment's notice with heroics), subbing in their concentration check in place of their normal save 1/encounter (so a wizard need worry less about failing his fort save, ditto for the fighter and his will save). If your wizard or rogue can enter necropolitan, all the better, with its laundry list of blanket immunities.

Maybe 3e was more like a game of "rock, paper, scissors"...