Remathilis
Legend
Cadfan said:
You get over it after a while.
Is 4th edition getting soft? - edited for friendly content :)
- Thread starter DM-Rocco
- Start date
You get over it after a while.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Grog said:
I didn't claim that "all that matters in chess is one move".
Or are you claiming that there is no context to an encounter with a creature (regardless of its statistics), or to rolls made in the game? Or do your characters tend to wake up with bodaks in the morning?
Care for some fire, Strawman?
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
Cadfan said:
Do me a favour and try not to infer anything from my questions when all I'm trying to find out is if you have a special kind of encounter in mind, or are leaving it up to the people answering it. I thought it polite to ask you, since you put the challenge up, if you have more details in mind, so I could take them into account before I post, and not get them from you after I posted.
Since it's left to me, let's look at a few different versions. Up front, I usually am a bit stingy with magical items compared to standard D&D baseline, except for potions and "special "items that are meant to stay with a character longer.
1) As a planned encounter: This would include a "special use" for that monster, one that gives characters a chance to prepare a bit for the encounter to come. This should be mentioned in the monster description, though. With that in mind, I'd actually peg your monster appropriate, if pretty challenging, for a group of around 8th level. At that point, the cleric of the group will have two death wards available, and if the group has done their legwork, he will know they'll need them further. In a group of 4, he can cover the two most likely to meet the monster in direct melee (and hence be victim to its death attack effect) with countermeasures against it, while the other two try to attack it without getting into line of sight. Depending on the HD/combat ability of that monster, the resulting melee can take 2-3 rounds, making it an interesting encounter for an end fight, and one the group will be HAPPY to end quick, too.
2) As a random encounter: With that DC, an "appropriate" Fortitude save should enable a survival chance of 80% for my personal tastes (yeah, even random encounters should be allowed to kill PCs now and then), which would mean on a 2 (minimum to make a save), the base Fort bonus would have to be +14...something fighters and their like routinely get at level 20, wizards and their like only at epic levels, or with the right magical protection. I could start arguing now that all those "low Fort" classes have built-in and assumed external ways to equalize that gap in their defenses, but I view that kind of number-niggling a bit of a sandbox exercise, since everybody can pull up those numbers that support his PoV. So I'll simply say level 20-22 would make this monster an appropriate "random encounter", maybe something you meet in the Abyss or the Plane of Shadow while chasing a demon around.
What sticks out of your posts (and of course correct me if I'm wrong) is the opinion that, if the setup enables the characters to come up with appropriate countermeasures against the monster's special effect, it automatically means that ability, and in turn the monster as a challenge, is worthless. This may be your opinion, of course, but I certainly don't share it. The fact that this monster has the ability is what makes the characters try and find out good ways to survive it before they meet it. That's part of the challenge of the monster, too. It's not the best possible scenario to reduce everything to "characters meet monster out of the blue, how many survive". If the characters can find out about that DC 20 death effect, and show some effort to negate or partially neutralize it, they are effectively starting the fight before they encounter the monster itself, which can be a challenge as well as the melee at the end.
The Little Raven
First Post
Save-or-die spells should stay, if the fighter gets save-or-die combat maneuvers like "Decapitate."
Raven Crowking
First Post
Grog said:
It isn't semantics; those two sentences do not mean the same thing.
"The game comes down to one move" means that there is one move in the game that ultimately upsets equilibrium. Just like, in the end, all D&D death comes down to one die roll.
"That is the only move that matters" means that that move comes without context and is essentially meaningless. That is certainly what you seem to think it means. Saying this is the same as saying that only that final die roll matters.
You can call this a matter of semantics if you want. It is, I suppose, in the same way as the difference between "the sun is shining" and "it is noontime" are semantical. The phrases are related, and use some of the same potential imagery, but few people would equate the two.
Your argument here seems to be that, if you strip my comments of context, you can make them seem to say what you want. Well, sure. But that doesn't actually answer the argument...though it is a nifty way to create a man of straw.
RC
Raven Crowking
First Post
Grog said:
And here, btw, you seem to understand that I said the game was decided by one move, rather than only one move counts.
Just saying.
RC
Simia Saturnalia
First Post
"That's not semantics. I'll show you semantics!"
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
Grog said:
Hey, you were the one bringing that up. I compared save or die rolls to betting your evening's winnings on one die roll, and the thrill of battling such an opponent to the thrill a gambler gets from doing his bet. If you say nobody forces to gambler to place that bet (something a lot of gamblers and gambling addiction councelors will argue, by the way
), I can only answer that nobody forces the player to bet with his character's live. And sorry, if the game includes one-roll save-or-die situations, and you know it, and you still play, then you ARE betting your character's life on those too. You play the game, you accept the rules, you place the bet. Bitching about the rules is optional if the bet is lost, like with any other game. Which doesn't mean the rule is bad to begin with, just that some people don't like risks with that kind of terminal results. Others like them. So who's right and who's wrong? What...enemies who are able to take a wizard with his (at 8th level, let's be a bit generous) 25 hit poits to -10 in one strike are very rare at CR and above? Let's look at the stone giant: CR 8, Greatclub +17/+12 (2d8+12), Power Attack. Standard line-up, nothing fancy. Since you were generous enough to grant that poor wizard a +5 bonus on his Fort save, I'll do the same for his AC and say he's got an AC of 15. Basically, that giant already hits with a 95% probability and causes an average of 21 points of damage. 5% for a threat x 95% for a confirmed crit make it a 4.8% chance of total overkill. Simply power-attacking for 5 points instead still mean a 90% probability to hit (Attack reduced to +12, a 3 or better is needed to hit) and raises the average damage to 25 points, which simply means the wizard keels over with -1 HP, dying. The chance for a crit is reduced to 4.5% but it'll just kill him even deader. And since that character is either alone, or the group is surprised by the attack, I don't really view the above as a lot different from a bodak's "surprise gaze" result. And if you can have bodaks as random surprise encounters, a stone giant is not too far fetched either.
The whole thing looks different with an 8th level fighter..or with the inclusion of more "assumed" magic. Which is why I'm saying number niggling isn't really helpful, except maybe to remember the numbers of 3E.
Yep...13th level is so darn common, right? Having a save-or-die spell doesn't say a thing about the power and reputation of the person able to wield it. 6th or 8th level characters are already run-off-the-mill standard, after all. I stand corrected, obviously.
In general response to Geron Raveneye,
That's not exactly my opinion. My opinions are more these:
1: Save-or-die creates a lot of problems. It does not add a ton to the game. The problems include, in short, ruining major combats by killing off bad guys instantly, ruining all combats by killing off players instantly, and creating a "yes-huh/nuh-uh" binary in which each save-or-die is canceled out by an anti-save-or-die spell that sounds more like 8 year olds playing soldier than a game of D&D.
2: The only things save-or-die adds to the game are, first, a threat of immediate character death, and second, enabling a "die/resurrect/die again" style of gameplay that some people enjoy.
3: Those things that it does add can generally be put back into the game through some other method which does not create the problems created by save-or-die.
4: The CR system doesn't break save-or-die, save-or-die breaks the CR system. And in fact, its going to break any system for estimating balanced combats because it is an all-or-nothing effect in a game not built around all-or-nothing effects.
One of the common defenses of save-or-die is that they make good threats to use against characters so that the players have to find a way around encountering the threat. This is the defense you mount in your "planned encounter" response. This is one particular instance in which I think save-or-die can be easily replaced with other kinds of threats. As Doug McCrae aptly points out, in such a scenario you might as well get rid of the save. Its not adding anything to the fight.
Looking at the two examples you gave, you put the same monster as appropriate for either level 8, or level 22, depending on context. That's pretty extreme, and creates its own problems, primarily related to the monster's hit points. I'm going to look at those examples, and suggest an alternative.
In both cases, the monster you described was essentially a glass cannon. That's fine and all. I just think that a different cannon might make the encounters better.
In the first, thanks to knowing the monster was coming, the party basically casts a spell that reads "the monster's glass cannon doesn't work now." Then they chop it into little pieces. Deprived of its cannon, its essentially a medium sized mook. While its fun to prep and use your preparation to obtain an easier win, I think this is overdoing it. The small amount of preparation necessary (notice monster, cast death ward) to create such a high degree of nerfing seems out of proportion.
In the second, the monster gets to keep his glass cannon, making him appropriate versus only epic characters. In this case, if the players make their saves, the monster is a really pathetic mook since it was killable by level 8 character in 2 to 3 rounds, and the power curve of the game means that a level 22 party is going to eat this creature alive. It might literally require one melee hit to kill. If the players don't make their saves, its a random encounter that attritions basically no resources whatsoever off the party, except that the cleric loses a casting of a Raise Dead spell.
Also note the disasters that occur if this monster is used outside of the bounds you've specified. I'm sure you can work them out.
Now lets create an alternative glass cannon, and see how it fares. We'll give it the same physical stats (killable in 2 to 3 roundsby level 8 characters), and we'll give it a glass cannon of its own, but not one which is all or nothing. Lets give it... the ability to arc electricity at an attacker for a large amount of damage, an amount that's genuinely frightening to a level 8 character, but which won't kill him in one hit. We'll give reflex for half, no attack roll.
Now, at level 8, if the players scout the monster out, they can cast spells that protect from energy, and have an encounter similar to what you described in your example number 1.
At levels above 8, the monster gets closer and closer to, and eventually becomes, a decent, balanced encounter without preparation. Lets say that at level 12, its a decent fight without preparation. Everyone has better reflex saves, more hit points, they can kill it faster, and the party's healing is more powerful.
By level 22, the monster is undoubtedly a trivial threat. Enter monster number 2, which is the same thing advanced in hit dice, or whatever the relevant language is in 4e.
By changing the save-or-die cannon of the original glass cannon to a powerful attack that isn't all or nothing, the monster retains the threat it originally created, and yet becomes appropriate for all kinds of other uses. Its usable in all the same ways as the original, plus some, and with a seriously reduced potential for catastrophe if used in a way outside of its original, very tight bounds.
Geron Raveneye said:
That's not exactly my opinion. My opinions are more these:
1: Save-or-die creates a lot of problems. It does not add a ton to the game. The problems include, in short, ruining major combats by killing off bad guys instantly, ruining all combats by killing off players instantly, and creating a "yes-huh/nuh-uh" binary in which each save-or-die is canceled out by an anti-save-or-die spell that sounds more like 8 year olds playing soldier than a game of D&D.
2: The only things save-or-die adds to the game are, first, a threat of immediate character death, and second, enabling a "die/resurrect/die again" style of gameplay that some people enjoy.
3: Those things that it does add can generally be put back into the game through some other method which does not create the problems created by save-or-die.
4: The CR system doesn't break save-or-die, save-or-die breaks the CR system. And in fact, its going to break any system for estimating balanced combats because it is an all-or-nothing effect in a game not built around all-or-nothing effects.
One of the common defenses of save-or-die is that they make good threats to use against characters so that the players have to find a way around encountering the threat. This is the defense you mount in your "planned encounter" response. This is one particular instance in which I think save-or-die can be easily replaced with other kinds of threats. As Doug McCrae aptly points out, in such a scenario you might as well get rid of the save. Its not adding anything to the fight.
Looking at the two examples you gave, you put the same monster as appropriate for either level 8, or level 22, depending on context. That's pretty extreme, and creates its own problems, primarily related to the monster's hit points. I'm going to look at those examples, and suggest an alternative.
In both cases, the monster you described was essentially a glass cannon. That's fine and all. I just think that a different cannon might make the encounters better.
In the first, thanks to knowing the monster was coming, the party basically casts a spell that reads "the monster's glass cannon doesn't work now." Then they chop it into little pieces. Deprived of its cannon, its essentially a medium sized mook. While its fun to prep and use your preparation to obtain an easier win, I think this is overdoing it. The small amount of preparation necessary (notice monster, cast death ward) to create such a high degree of nerfing seems out of proportion.
In the second, the monster gets to keep his glass cannon, making him appropriate versus only epic characters. In this case, if the players make their saves, the monster is a really pathetic mook since it was killable by level 8 character in 2 to 3 rounds, and the power curve of the game means that a level 22 party is going to eat this creature alive. It might literally require one melee hit to kill. If the players don't make their saves, its a random encounter that attritions basically no resources whatsoever off the party, except that the cleric loses a casting of a Raise Dead spell.
Also note the disasters that occur if this monster is used outside of the bounds you've specified. I'm sure you can work them out.
Now lets create an alternative glass cannon, and see how it fares. We'll give it the same physical stats (killable in 2 to 3 roundsby level 8 characters), and we'll give it a glass cannon of its own, but not one which is all or nothing. Lets give it... the ability to arc electricity at an attacker for a large amount of damage, an amount that's genuinely frightening to a level 8 character, but which won't kill him in one hit. We'll give reflex for half, no attack roll.
Now, at level 8, if the players scout the monster out, they can cast spells that protect from energy, and have an encounter similar to what you described in your example number 1.
At levels above 8, the monster gets closer and closer to, and eventually becomes, a decent, balanced encounter without preparation. Lets say that at level 12, its a decent fight without preparation. Everyone has better reflex saves, more hit points, they can kill it faster, and the party's healing is more powerful.
By level 22, the monster is undoubtedly a trivial threat. Enter monster number 2, which is the same thing advanced in hit dice, or whatever the relevant language is in 4e.
By changing the save-or-die cannon of the original glass cannon to a powerful attack that isn't all or nothing, the monster retains the threat it originally created, and yet becomes appropriate for all kinds of other uses. Its usable in all the same ways as the original, plus some, and with a seriously reduced potential for catastrophe if used in a way outside of its original, very tight bounds.
Similar Threads
