Is 4th edition getting soft? - edited for friendly content :)

[Grog]

Of course I do. If I don't checkmate you, I don't win. No matter how skillfully I manuver, if I screw the pooch at the last second, I lose. And often, following a game of chess, I can mull it over and determine at which move I erred, and the game was lost. A great many people can do so, IME at least.

So all those chess masters who see checkmate coming five or six or seven moves away and concede - they just don't know anything about the game? Is that it?

 

[DM-Rocco]

Especially when an option may cause problems for one group of people, which is what a lot of people miss in these discussions.

If SoD creatures need to be carefully controlled and used only in certain circumstances or with advance warning or only against certain types of group, etc...then they shouldn't be included in the standard list of creatures or they should have warnings on them specifically.

It is certainly possible for a DM who is still new or pressed for time to design an adventure by looking at the list of monsters and saying "Ok, a need a CR 8 creature...umm....Bodak, that looks good, I'll put on in this room." and accidentally kill off half or all his PCs.

Okay, is the begining DM running the players through a chaotic evil-aligned plane? Because that is where most Bodak hail from, per the Environment in the SRD and also mentioned earlier, they are very rare and only found in the abyss, which was omitted in the newer versions. That is a failing of the design team to not potray the Bodak in a true light (no pun intended ). The new DM might overlook the natural Environment of the Bodak being in a chaotic evil-aligned plane but if the 3.+ team had done a little more work they would have included a very rare status on the creature and proclaimed they are almost unheard of on the prime material plane. Thus, it would be highly unlikely that a Bodak would be lurking in a dungeon but your clue that you might find one, or simular threat, on a chaotic evil-aligned plane is a knowledge plane check or a knowledge religion check, thus you would prepare for visiting a chaotic evil-aligned plane.

The Bodak is a rarity since it can use a SoD effect to target a 30 foot range at such a low level. Most SoD effects only target one creature at this level and ones like Phantasmal Killer offers two saves. . The target first gets a Will save to recognize the image as unreal. If that save fails, the phantasm touches the subject, and the subject must succeed on a Fortitude save or die from fear. If you are immune to illusions, like True Sight, or immune to fear, like a paladin, then you don't even need to bother with it. So a Bodak with a CR of 8 that can effect everyone in a 30 range with a SoD is not a correct CR. That is not the fault of the SoD effects, it is a fault of the Bodak not having enough HD to be a tougher CR with a higher SoD save. The creature is in balanced and a poor example that everyone keeps reffering to.

It is not until you get to 5th level spells that they start to have SoD effects like Could Kill that effect more than one target and those have HD caps on who can be effected. Pretty much anyone over 7 HD will just lose Con and not have to SoD.

The next SoD spell that is trouble is Circle of Death. The spell slays 1d4 HD worth of living creatures per caster level (maximum 20d4). Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first; among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the burst’s point of origin are affected first. No creature of 9 or more HD can be affected, and Hit Dice that are not sufficient to affect a creature are wasted. Even this has a HD effecting cap of 9 and it snuffs out those with the least amount of HD first.

Then you have the 8th level Finger of Death which is simular to the Phantasmal Killer except you only get one saving throw, it still only effects one target and at this level you should have ways of dealing with it including raise the dead or other spells just incase you roll a 1 on your save and didn't have protection on in time.

So what everyone is really concerned about is Power Word Kill and Wail of the Banshee and since Powerword Kill has a HP cap you are more worried about the 9th level arcane spell that only a 17th level or higher arcane caster can cast. Perhaps he should just memorized a few more Magic Missles and just widdle you down that way. What do you think a 9th level spell will do for crying out loud. It takes you getting to 17th level and casting Wail of the Banshee or Implosion or other spell for you to have to worry about mass SoD effects in a serious manner and at that level your characters should have ways of dealing with them or you should be able to kill the caster first.

Creatures with SoD effects are a bit more rare and the Bodak is a horrible example because the SoD effect of the Bodak should not be on a CR 8 creature, but I think you know that.

Anyway, the SoD os balanced throughout the leveling system with the exception of a few bad choices by the monster design team. It should be in the game and not taken out just because PCs and DMs don't understand it. They have whole books dedicated to Adventurers and clerics, why not take a few pages to explain how to handle SoD effects.

 

[Imperialus]

I'd like you to indulge me in an exercise.

Pretend that I've played a couple 6-month campaigns of 3.5, so I know how the rules work, but always in pre-written adventures. Let's assume they've all been pretty good modules, and the GM was workmanlike but not remarkable. Now I've stepping up to the plate to run some 3.5, and the levels 1-3 and 3-7 modules I bought have served me well. Now I'm striking out on my own, writing the next arc based on PC intentions to take them from 7 to roughly 11, and I'm writing some undead encounters I want to be challenging, but not disastrous for the party.

Now for whatever reason, I don't read gaming forums and basically trust the 3.5 design team to have made a balanced game with the core books. Tell me what would make it obvious, while I'm sitting at home with my core books and a notepad, that I shouldn't use a bodak just like any other CR 8 undead.


EDIT: Because the DM I've just described is the most important one the hobby has; the first-timer new to the game, whose future gaming likely hinges on how his first DMing goes.

That's brilliant. I actually lost a lot of confidance in DMing for several years because of a poorly planned encounter that ended in a very ugly TPK. Everyone walked away from the table mad that night and it almost broke up the group. This was shortly after 3.0 came out and though I'd been playing since 2nd ed I was a pretty inexperianced DM. It was my screw-up but it was a save or die spell that killed a single PC and caused a chain reaction from there. Since then the group has never used one, and rarely even anything approaching one.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now for whatever reason, I don't read gaming forums and basically trust the 3.5 design team to have made a balanced game with the core books. Tell me what would make it obvious, while I'm sitting at home with my core books and a notepad, that I shouldn't use a bodak just like any other CR 8 undead.

Hey, I agree with you that this DM is the most important one the hobby has.

However, I disagree with you abuot the problem. The problem is not simply the bodak design or the lack of material in the core books that make you unable to determine whether or not a bodak should be treated just like any other CR 8 undead. The problem is that the game designers both included one, and did not include the other.

There is nothing wrong with including special monsters; there is something wrong with including special monsters and not indicating that you have done so, or which ones they are. As Geryon Raveneye noted, by striping the 1e context from the creature, the 3e design team did that DM a disservice. From my understanding, this is something that the 4e design team is trying to address with "monster roles".

Someone who doesn't know how to use a jigsaw can hurt himself while doing so. The fault isn't necessarily in the jigsaw, or even necessarily in the user. The problem lies in handing someone a jigsaw without instructions for its use.

IMHO, of course.

RC

 

[Cadfan]

Alright, I'm getting close to tossing out insults.

Go read my post at 394. Someone needs to answer Question 1 from that post. I've asked multiple times. I've explained earlier in this thread why I think the question can't be answered. If no one can answer that question, then someone needs to explain why its the wrong question.

Because from where I'm sitting, if no one can answer it, its basically a concession that the CR system is NOT to blame, save-or-die is.

I'd rewrite the question, but then I'd get answers to the rewrite, and not the original question, which I tried to write out in decent detail.

 

[DM-Rocco]

But after level 7, every wizard potentially has a save-or-die spell. After level 9, every cleric does. Do only jackass DMs throw wizards and clerics at their players?

No, but at this level, if a spell caster in that party sees a spell caster in the opposing party then they should try and kill them quickly (which most people do, "Hey, I rush the guy in the robes regardless of the 15 soldiers in my way") or ready a counter spell or cast silence over the spell caster or cast a wall of ice or stone or force in front of the opposed caster. There are a lot of things you can do but I can't get into all of them without exact details.

Also, not every SoD spell that a wizard or cleric casts kills, even though it is a SoD spell. I just posted a lengthy reply one or two threads above this. Most of the SoD spells at this level offer multiple saves or only effect certain HP or HD of creatures. The PCs are usually above these limits.

 

[DM-Rocco]

In my view, the defence of SoD is very simple:

It's a thrill.

It's a big thrill to be one die roll away from death. DM-Rocco's defence, which Cadfan (rather brilliantly) points out amounts to never using them, is fundamentally mistaken. In fact DM-Rocco is arguing the wrong position. He's actually opposed to SoDs and doesn't realise it.

That is not ture, but thanks for reading my mind

It is not that I don't use it or that rarely use it, it is that I properly use it and I don't abuse it. But everyone reads what they want

 

[Reynard]

1) At what level is this monster an appropriate encounter for a character? If you don't want to answer with a particular level, just answer with the fort save you think a character should have at the point where this monster is an appropriate encounter. Please specify whether the fortitude save you've given is the expected low fortitude save for the group, or the expected high fortitude save.

10th level sounds about right -- the PCs will be tough enough and they'll have access to the right resources to either deal with the creature or recover from the consequences.

2) Would I be right in assuming that your view of proper use of a save-or-die effect is to place it in a situation where the players do not actually have to save-or-die, but where they feel frightened that they might in the future? Because your examples of proper use of save-or-die spells and effects invariably involve situations where the party has some means of never having to actually roll the save. Sometimes its death ward, sometimes its magical rings, sometimes its fighting with their eyes closed. How frequently do you feel that players, who are in general playing well and not doing anything stupid, should have to actually make the roll and either save, or die?

You're thinking about it backwards. there isn't one proper way to use save or die -- there's an improper way, which is to toss it in randomly without any thought to how it is going to work, without informing the PCs in one form or another that it might be there.

 

[DM-Rocco]

I'd like you to indulge me in an exercise.

Pretend that I've played a couple 6-month campaigns of 3.5, so I know how the rules work, but always in pre-written adventures. Let's assume they've all been pretty good modules, and the GM was workmanlike but not remarkable. Now I've stepping up to the plate to run some 3.5, and the levels 1-3 and 3-7 modules I bought have served me well. Now I'm striking out on my own, writing the next arc based on PC intentions to take them from 7 to roughly 11, and I'm writing some undead encounters I want to be challenging, but not disastrous for the party.

Now for whatever reason, I don't read gaming forums and basically trust the 3.5 design team to have made a balanced game with the core books. Tell me what would make it obvious, while I'm sitting at home with my core books and a notepad, that I shouldn't use a bodak just like any other CR 8 undead.


EDIT: Because the DM I've just described is the most important one the hobby has; the first-timer new to the game, whose future gaming likely hinges on how his first DMing goes.

I'm at work and I spent enough time for today answering with long answers, but the short answer is that when I started in 1st edition none of us new anything and it all came down to trial error. I would suspect either the PCs get lucky and no one dies or the DM realizes taht something is a miss and learns the hard way that CR is not always right.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

All deaths in D&D come down to a single die roll.

It's not the fall that killed him. It's the landing. Therefore a fall of 30,000 feet is equivalently dangerous to one of 10 feet.