Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 6366725" data-attributes="member: 205">Jersey fight!&nbsp; Yep, this is what I mean by math and intent not matching up.If you say &quot;3 PCs out of 5 should not be taken out for at least half an encounter at high level&quot;, there's a lot of variables to parse just in that one statement.Is 3 bad because it's more than half?&nbsp; Would 2 out of 5 be OK?&nbsp; If the party was only 3 people, how should that expectation be adjusted?&nbsp; Should it always be the case that there is zero probability of everyone being affected in a party?&nbsp; Maybe sleep type rules, where there's a maximum number of HPs that can be affected, should be used for all save-or-dies?&nbsp; Or limitations on number of targets, maybe only affecting up to 3 targets who fail their save?Or does &quot;should never happen&quot; mean higher than 0 probability, but still really low?&nbsp; Like less than 5%?&nbsp; Or less than 1%?&nbsp; Point being, raising up lower saves is nice, but it's not going to stop situations where most of the party is neutralized.&nbsp; It will just lower the incidence (and the overall duration, for save every round effects).&nbsp; Is that enough for you to feel that your intent is being met?Doesn't that mean that save bonuses and save DCs are largely irrelevant, then?&nbsp; If the concern is across the board, than shouldn't the effects themselves be the target of the house rules?&nbsp; So you're saying incapacitation of less than half of PCs for less than half of the encounter is OK, but more than half of the PCs for more than half the encounter is bad.&nbsp; (Let's ignore the fact that failing saves increases encounter duration by preventing offensive resources being brought to bear, as it complicates the situation further).&nbsp; That's a pretty tight window to tune the DCs and saves into.&nbsp; Plus, we need to determine what the allowable probability is for each situation.&nbsp; I mean, you're looking for what, about a 90%-95% probability of at least 3 characters succeeding a saving throw out of 5?&nbsp; Assuming 2 have it as a &quot;good&quot; save (however we define that), and 3 not?Any system that relies on a d20 is going to be susceptible to hot/cold dice.&nbsp; The systemic fix for that is to not have effects that can incapacitate multiple PCs.&nbsp; &nbsp; Or to tune the probabilities so that the chance of affecting the majority of party members is quite low (&lt;1%, realistically.&nbsp; Even a 5% chance of a TPK roll for a nasty spell gives a decently high chance of a wipe over 10+ occurrences).Could be.&nbsp; I want to look through the Monster Manual and see the prevalence of multi-target incapacitate-type powers before I judge what house rules I deem appropriate.&nbsp; I have no issue with the party getting screwed over by lesser effects.&nbsp; My personal game desires have no problem with near auto-hit effects for higher level monsters, as long as they aren't insta-wipes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwoSix, post: 6366725, member: 205"] Jersey fight! Yep, this is what I mean by math and intent not matching up. If you say "3 PCs out of 5 should not be taken out for at least half an encounter at high level", there's a lot of variables to parse just in that one statement. Is 3 bad because it's more than half? Would 2 out of 5 be OK? If the party was only 3 people, how should that expectation be adjusted? Should it always be the case that there is zero probability of everyone being affected in a party? Maybe sleep type rules, where there's a maximum number of HPs that can be affected, should be used for all save-or-dies? Or limitations on number of targets, maybe only affecting up to 3 targets who fail their save? Or does "should never happen" mean higher than 0 probability, but still really low? Like less than 5%? Or less than 1%? Point being, raising up lower saves is nice, but it's not going to stop situations where most of the party is neutralized. It will just lower the incidence (and the overall duration, for save every round effects). Is that enough for you to feel that your intent is being met? Doesn't that mean that save bonuses and save DCs are largely irrelevant, then? If the concern is across the board, than shouldn't the effects themselves be the target of the house rules? So you're saying incapacitation of less than half of PCs for less than half of the encounter is OK, but more than half of the PCs for more than half the encounter is bad. (Let's ignore the fact that failing saves increases encounter duration by preventing offensive resources being brought to bear, as it complicates the situation further). That's a pretty tight window to tune the DCs and saves into. Plus, we need to determine what the allowable probability is for each situation. I mean, you're looking for what, about a 90%-95% probability of at least 3 characters succeeding a saving throw out of 5? Assuming 2 have it as a "good" save (however we define that), and 3 not? Any system that relies on a d20 is going to be susceptible to hot/cold dice. The systemic fix for that is to not have effects that can incapacitate multiple PCs. Or to tune the probabilities so that the chance of affecting the majority of party members is quite low (<1%, realistically. Even a 5% chance of a TPK roll for a nasty spell gives a decently high chance of a wipe over 10+ occurrences). Could be. I want to look through the Monster Manual and see the prevalence of multi-target incapacitate-type powers before I judge what house rules I deem appropriate. I have no issue with the party getting screwed over by lesser effects. My personal game desires have no problem with near auto-hit effects for higher level monsters, as long as they aren't insta-wipes. [/QUOTE]

Verification