SKR's problem with certain high level encounters

[(contact)]

This is a great thread. Thanks, everyone.

 

[Cheiromancer]

One issue that I think would be easy to address is the volatile nature of high-level encounters. Combats whose outcomes depend on who gets the highest initiative.

Maybe some judicious fiddling to try to keep combats longer: attack routines that do not kill a character a round. More hit points for monsters. Lots more hit points. Five times the normal number of hit points. Or ten!

A useful measure of a monster may be the "suicide test"- how long a combat with an exact copy of itself would last, ignoring special immunities. Check to see if it misses its own AC only on a 1; stuff like that. Check how many "save or die" effects it has. Could be a very enlightening experiment.

 

[takyris]

Heck, a "House Rule" can fix most of the problem really quickly:

If a creature has a Disintegration or Death Effect ability, remove that ability. Give the creature Haste, Displacement, and Dimension Door as spell-like abilities to compensate, or DR 5-10/-, or +8 to Constitution. Voila. A monster that survives quite a bit longer, has the ability to run away, and is a tad harder to damage.

Do this only for monsters where the death effect seems tacked on. A basilisk and a bodak are otherwise weak monsters with a limited instakill power -- it has a limited range and a fairly easy save.

But a beholder with self-hasting, DR 8/-, Regeneration 5, a Dispel Magic eye ray, and Dimension door usable 3/day, in the place of, say, Death Spell, and Disintegrate, is going to create a much longer and more involved combat. He's still got the Hold and Flesh to Stone stuff going on, but a high level party can get past those problems quickly. He's dangerous, but he probably won't kill as many people -- although he could still finish off an unprepared party fairly easily.

Or, as another option, items. Several of my players have items that stop Death magic aimed their way. The items have limited charges, and take up an item slot. They have to choose whether to wear the "no death spell" amulet or the "+2 Dexterity, Fire resistance 15" amulet or the "+3 to Fortitude Saves" amulet. If they get killed by a beholder because they wore the wrong amulet, that wasn't horrible game balance. That was strategy, and a choice on their part.

-Tacky

 

[PeterDonis]

I think you are dealing with a classic case of confusing cause and effect. It doesn't matter whether you run a story based game or a hack and slash game, the mechanics of high level combat remain the same. Either you kill or be killed. And that harsh standard forces everyone (whether the PC's or the DM) to always be ready for combat and when in doubt attack on sight. I have already written extensively about defusing the attack on sight attitude of the PC's, but at some point the system is going to force it on the PC's if you as a DM ever plan on having monsters that seriously challenge them at high level. As a PC waiting or holding your action is highly unattractive if the monsters first action could quite probably kill one or more members of the party. So the reason that everyone is buffing up isn't that the game is combat oriented, the game is combat oriented because everyone is so buff. Failure to be ready and willing for combat puts you out of the game if the other side was ready and willing for combat. How many DM's have been caught unprepared for NPC death because the NPC wasn't supposed to be attacked but died in the first round?

The solution isn't merely changing playing style, it is limiting the destructiveness of PC's and NPC's so that they have time to interact memorably violently or otherwise and feel that they can afford to give up the advantage of going first in order to see if some sort of non-violent interaction is possible.

But the change has to start with the DM, and it's a change in playing style, not game stats. If the PC's are trigger happy it's because the DM has given them no reason to be otherwise--if every monster they meet immediately unleashes its most lethal attack, the players are going to react accordingly. The way to get the players not to do this is to not have monsters do it. In other words, make success in the game less dependent on success in combat. Give the players a reason to do something other than kill everything they meet. That's a change in playing style, not game stats--you can have a hack and slash game just as easily with underpowered characters as with overpowered characters, and you can have a non-hack and slash game even if every character is minmaxed to the max (as it were).

As for unexpected NPC death, part of the fun of being a DM is constantly having to deal with the unexpected. I've been surprised just as much in the other direction--having an NPC or monster all set to wreak havoc on the party, and then the players find a way to not have to fight it at all. If you're worried about well-laid plans getting tossed out the window, don't be a DM.

Peter Donis

 

[LostSoul]

Save or die effects are pretty much necessary to a fantasy game if you want to inspire fear.

Give the PCs and major NPCs some kind of "fate points" that allows them to somehow alter the most important rolls.

 

[Mark Chance]

Please email me....

There is a simple way of doing this with the existing rules. Give a creature multiple DRs.

I think is an outstanding suggestion. If you see this, please email me. I need to ask you something privately at mchance3@houston.rr.com

Thank you.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Save or die effects are pretty much necessary to a fantasy game if you want to inspire fear.

Give the PCs and major NPCs some kind of "fate points" that allows them to somehow alter the most important rolls.

Power words have no saves, but do have a hit point cap. IMC Harm has no save, but it does no more than 10 hp/caster level. Suppose save or die effects worked in a similar way and had a really high hit point cap? High enough that the save or die spells work normally except at really high levels. At those really high levels they allow hit points to soak up the effect of the spell- but it would take a lot of hit points. 10, 15 or 20 hp per caster level say.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Save or die effects are pretty much necessary to a fantasy game if you want to inspire fear.

Give the PCs and major NPCs some kind of "fate points" that allows them to somehow alter the most important rolls.

Necessary? I don't see why.

Ability damage and negative levels are intimidating in a way that losing half your hit points isn't, at least until you have access to Heal. Even if you survive the combat, you will be in a bad way until the Cleric can prep a bunch of restorations tomorrow morning.

While I don't like save or die effects, I don't advocate removing them completely from the game. They have their place, more for flavor than dramatic necessity. But even a medusa's gaze could be rewritten as Dex damage (stiffening up), where you turn to stone when your Dex is 0.

 

[Celebrim]

"If the PC's are trigger happy it's because the DM has given them no reason to be otherwise--if every monster they meet immediately unleashes its most lethal attack, the players are going to react accordingly."

Errr... you missed the point entirely. I don't run hack and slash campaigns (except demonstration nights at the gaming store but thats a different story). Hack and slashers in my campaigns die horribly. I've written extensively on this board about avoiding hack and slash campaigning and defusing the 'kill on sight attitude', so you are preaching to the choir and the deacons.

I was going to go through another long explanation, but if you don't get it now you won't no matter how I explain. I've been doing this for 20 years now, and I find the thought of you trying to tell me that high level combat in D&D doesn't go too quickly and that simply changing my DMing style will correct that frankly kinda silly. Referee games for another 10 years and then we'll have this conversation.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Lostsoul - which has more dramatic tension:
A duel where the two individuals are evenly matched, and during the duel, both individuals are wounded repeatedly, wearing each other down, until one of them finally strikes the killing blow.

OR

A duel where one side is worried because the other side might disintegrate him before he disintegrates them.

Unless we're going for a wild-west style gunfight, where both sides stand around sizing up their opponent before suddenly attacking (not really covered by the D&D rules, or even a sane way for the average monster to behave), I'd have to say number 1.

The tension in #1 has been generated by the fact that it's a neck-and-neck race. If spells worked in a similar way to hitpoints (for instance petrification causing dex damage), then the tension is increased - it's possible for a character to have a "phew, one more of those would have finished me off" moment, instead of just waiting for the inevitable failed saving throw.