Stupid High Skill Checks and Saves

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I don't consider making encounters more exciting by artificially adding challenge to be a big problem. The bigger problem, to me, is players running unchecked through the world, mowing down any opposition and becoming bored. I've been in that situation as a player, under a DM who did not have a head for the rules.

With a lot of study and investment, a DM can become rules savvy and legitimately challenge PCs without any fiat. But not everyone has that luxury and not everyone necessarily wants to dedicate that much time and money to the hobby. For DMs who more or less understand the rules trying to run games for powergamers, my advice is to close up shop. Without some major change, the DM is not going to run a game satisfying for the players and the players are not going to react to challenges in a way that can satisfy the DM. But if you just have to DM in this circumstance, the simplest way to challenge the players is to make numers 2 or 5 or 10 points higher. Not because you want to completely overwhelm the PCs, but because the chance for failure is too low otherwise.

I've been in plenty of games where the target number was frequently "one over whatever you rolled" to accurately smell BS when its presented as challenge. DM'ing on the fly frequently means "the monster has HP until I say it doesnt".

Let me turn this around. Would you accept a player fudging their saves? I mean, if they'd buffed properly or taken the right feat combos or factored in some obscure profane alchemical bonus from eating cursed frogs that stacks with everything, they could have managed an extra 2-3 bonus on their roll too.

Creating a character with high in one area usually takes character resources out of another. The guy with high saves probably has less strength in another area, be it a lower attack, ac, damage output, etc. If you just modify saves to where he needs a 10+ to make the save, you've negated his the benefit he gained from sacraficing in another.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

My complaint about saving throws stemmed from little more than a series of bad luck for my bad guys. It's much the same phenomenon that leads people to say, "I hate these dice! These dice roll ones all the stinking time! I haven't rolled over a 3 all night!" (forgetting, of course, the 19 and the critical hit just made last round).

You always remember the streaks. I rolled 4 20's in a row last night, and the players were griping about my cheater dice. We checked my average and it came to be a 9.something for the evening. No one but me remembered those poor chuuls saving throws.

 

[JustKim]

Does someone in this situation tell the players that he is doing this?

When I was running Axe of the Dwarvish Lords, the PCs fought the "boss" monster once and defeated it pretty easily. When they fought it a second time, it was much more difficult. There was some joking about how I'd spiced up the monster since it was too easy the first time, but in fact, the monster becomes more powerful as part of the adventure.

Nobody was upset with the idea that I had artificially made the monster tougher, and I never told them that I hadn't.

 

[Henry]

I've been in plenty of games where the target number was frequently "one over whatever you rolled" to accurately smell BS when its presented as challenge. DM'ing on the fly frequently means "the monster has HP until I say it doesnt".

Do you put forth the thought that almost all cases of DM'ing on the fly ultimately turn into this example? I know you've stated before you've had some bad experiences with such really, REALLY bad DM's, but I occasionally DM "on the fly" and I've met others in other gaming groups who do and have rarely found it to be the case.

Most DM's I've known over the years I've been gaming mainly push the "fudge" factor to the point where it means the players get a few good rounds of challenge from the opponents before the players manage to trash them; in some cases I've seen, the players would have had a pretty boring experience otherwise by the ultimate bad guy encounter of the night getting trashed in the first round of combat. Not all DM's can be the kinds of rules-fiends that some skilled players are; it's also why I've encouraged players, wherever possible, to take a turn at DM'ing at least once, both to find out if there are any other potentially good DM's in the party, and to give them a chance to see what it takes to make a good session for all involved, taking some of the adversarialism out of it.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I have not had that problem. My current group has no PC's that have useful spot / listen modifiers.

The first suggestion that occurs to me is to start applying the distance modifiers for spot and listen as much as possible. And to consider that it is just as easy to pump up hide / move silently as it is to pump up spot and listen check.

As a side consideration, it may be that you have only your self to blame. Your players will learn from your tactics over time. Maybe you have made a career of springing ambushes on them at every viable opportunity. Or maybe you have just nearly TPK'ed them once or twice by getting the winning end of a Spot vs Hide check. If that is the case, then do not be shocked when they start maxing their Spot and Listen skills, take the Alertness feat, and buy guard dogs. Resist the urge to punish them deciding to maximize certain skills. My players have been making a habit of destroying NPC's with Hold Person and Hideous Laughter. That does not mean I should start using undead and strong will creatures just to punish that spell selection.

The next consideration is to take the advice of Sun Tzu. Do not attack strength with strength. Attack weakness with strength. Perhaps ambush is just not the right way to challenge your players. Instead of scoring the ambush, or worrying about High Save values, try something else.

Instead of going for an ambush, you could consider hit and run tactics with high mobility. Move into range, attack for a few rounds, then retreat and repeat. This will force them to burn off spells with much less effect than normal.

Instead of trying for spells that provoke saves, try for spells that just make life difficult. A well placed wall of stone can split the party and let you divide an conquer. Summon earth elementals that grapple spell casters. Drop Darkness and Fog spells that make it nearly impossible for their casters to target your monsters. Or drop a bunch of protection spells to fortify your own troops.

Lastly, how exactly are the saving throws getting so high anyway? It has been pretty well documented that the saves you gain at first level of a new class break down when you just stack a bunch of different classes together, but that is hard to fix without a house rull. Are they using buffs or magic items to acheive this?

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Halivar]

You always remember the streaks.

Ain't it the truth. In yesterday's session, one of our players rolled three d6's for damage, all ones. The next player then rolled two attacks at the same time: both one's.

 

[frankthedm]

I was just wondering if anyone (specifically DMs) has ever found that by about level 10, most PCs have Spot/Listen checks so out of this world that nothing short of a shadowdancer wearing a Cloak of Elvenkind at Midnight has much chance of successfully staying unseen or unheard.

Odd only a few classes get spot and listen as class skills, wheat are they playing? Are you allowing 3.0 prices on skill bonus magic items?

By the same token, my players seem to crank out 18-20+ on their saves (their WEAK saves) with annoying regularity. It's at the point where I don't bother throwing a spell at them unless it has negative effects even with a successful save.

Around 10th? That sounds hard unless you are exaggerating, they are cheating or they are all multiclassing into something with divine grace. Also you don't have too allow ALL supplemental material.

My players are all better at crunching numbers and putting together powerful class combos than I am.

You chose what excess material is allowed in game. It sounds like you have allowed too much.

Post soem scans of thier character sheets. Lets see thier math.

 

[Doug McCrae]

One word - Ragewalker (MM3). DC 28 will saves. CR 14.

 

[drothgery]

Around 10th? That sounds hard unless you are exaggerating, they are cheating or they are all multiclassing into something with divine grace.

Eh.
10th-level good save - +7
+ 2 cloak/vest of resistance should be affordable
add + 5 stat bonus (figuring starting with a +2, two improvements along the way to a +3, and a +4 stat booster item to make it +5)

... and you'll have +14 to a save, which means you'll make DC 20s most of the time, as you only need to roll a 7, and only need a 5 to make DC 18s.

10th level bad save - +3
+ 2 cloak/vest of resistance should be affordable
+ 2 stat bonus (either started with a +2, or +1 and +2 stat item)
... and you've got a +7. Which makes DC 18s on a 12, and DC 20s on a 14.

If you're using action points, you can add ~+4 to those when the PC really needs it.

So a very low-cheese (or possibly even cheese-free) 10th-level PC will pretty routinely make DC 18 saves. Throw in careful multiclassing, action points, save-boosting feats, and save-boosting class abilities, and you can get into only fail on a 1 territory.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Do you put forth the thought that almost all cases of DM'ing on the fly ultimately turn into this example? I know you've stated before you've had some bad experiences with such really, REALLY bad DM's, but I occasionally DM "on the fly" and I've met others in other gaming groups who do and have rarely found it to be the case.

In my experience, pretty much yeah. When its not written down, its basically boiled down to that. The monster lives until someone gets dropped low or into negatives, BBEG always makes his save against "save or dies", etc. Naturally I cant speak for everyone, or every DM, I just dont feel the need to water down every single statement I make with IMO, or IMX. I guess I could include it in my sig or something though.

I've actually got nothing against a fudge mechanic, be it action points, fate chips in deadlands, etc provided its a mechanic rather than "whenever I want to ignore the dice/DC's". If an epic bad guy is given 2 "story points" or whatever before they get killed, thats cool. So long as its factored in, that means my actions actually result in something when he has to pop off his immediate action teleport without error - because ultimately the players did accomplish something (run him out of a tracked get out of jail free card).

I get the frustration of DM'ing against massive stacked mods, but rather than just ignoring the totals, perhaps its better to limit the sources that can be stacked? Like say you can only add 3 types of bonus to skills or saves. You got a morale, competence, insight, alchemical, sacred etc bonus to your jump? Pick the 3 best, because the other stuff is probably overlapping anyways (like how only so many characters can use aid another on a skill check). Insight and competence bug me the most since I still cant actually figure out the difference, and sacred and profane should just be merged into divine. As a player, that would be more preferable, since its less book-keeping to keep track of, your choices are still meaningful, you're still challenged, and the number crunchers in the group arent wasting their time trying to figure out how to squeeze more blood out of the turnip when all the DM wants is them to fail on a result of 10 or lower (or whatever).